United States v. Woods, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16198

James Woods was tried for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; several coconspirators pleaded guilty and agreed to testify for the government.
The prosecution presented recorded calls (none explicitly naming meth) and cooperating witnesses’ testimony that they and Woods were involved in meth distribution; defense argued calls could concern other drugs and impeached witnesses with plea/leniency motives.
Before closing, the court instructed jurors that an indictment is not evidence and that a codefendant’s guilty plea is not evidence of another’s guilt; counsel arguments are not evidence.
In closing, the prosecutor argued that the cooperating witnesses would not have pleaded guilty to meth-related charges if the case were not about meth and urged that their pleas and testimony supported guilt; defense did not object at trial.
On appeal Woods argued the prosecutor improperly used coconspirators’ guilty pleas as substantive evidence and suggested prosecution/investigation implied guilt; he sought reversal under plain-error review.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding any error was not plain or did not affect substantial rights given ambiguity in the prosecutor’s remarks, the limiting instructions, and the strength of the evidence that the drug was meth.

Issue	Woods's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor improperly used coconspirators’ guilty pleas as substantive evidence	Prosecutor’s closing invited jury to treat pleas as proof Woods conspired to distribute meth	Remarks were ambiguous and reasonably read as bolstering witnesses’ credibility in response to defense impeachment	No plain error; ambiguous remarks + prior limiting instruction cured potential error
Whether district court had duty sua sponte to declare mistrial or give curative instruction absent objection	Court should have intervened to cure prosecutorial misuse of pleas	No clear or obvious duty where remarks ambiguous and preexisting jury instructions addressed issue	No plain error — court need not sua sponte act
Whether prosecutor implied that prosecution/investigation alone proves guilt	Suggesting investigation/prosecution indicates guilt improperly shifts burden	Statements reasonably contextualized as responding to claim that the conspiracy was about another drug, not as asserting guilt by prosecution	Not plain error; reasonable interpretation favored government
Whether any error affected substantial rights (prejudiced outcome)	Erroneous use of pleas tainted witnesses’ testimony and outcome	Strength of witnesses’ direct testimony that meth was involved made any error harmless	No plain error; defendant failed to show reasonable probability of different outcome

United States v. Beckman, 662 F.2d 661 (10th Cir. 1981) (plain-error review where no timely objection was made at trial)
United States v. Smalls, 752 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2014) (plain-error standards and burden on appellant)
United States v. Austin, 786 F.2d 986 (10th Cir. 1986) (government may not use codefendant convictions to prove elements of defendant’s crime)
United States v. Whitney, 229 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 2000) (limiting instruction required when admitting a codefendant’s plea to assess credibility)
United States v. Peterman, 841 F.2d 1474 (10th Cir. 1988) (danger of guilt-by-association from a codefendant’s plea)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (ambiguous prosecutorial statements during closing do not automatically violate due process)
United States v. Baez, 703 F.2d 453 (10th Cir. 1983) (codefendant’s guilty plea may not be used as substantive evidence of another’s guilt)