Is a prosecutor's profession of "vouching for witness credibility"?

No such inference is warranted here because when the challenged remark is viewed in context, it is clearly not the prosecutor's profession of a personal belief but, rather, a conclusion that he urged the jury to draw from the totality of the evidence. See United States v. Perez, 144 F.3d 204, 210 (2d Cir. 1998) (observing that "what might superficially appear to be improper vouching for witness credibility may turn out on closer examination to be permissible reference to the evidence in the case"). Moments before making the challenged statement, the prosecutor urged the jury "carefully and thoughtfully [to] consider [the witness's] testimony," to "think back to his demeanor [and] to how he answered the questions," and to "[t]hink back to the little details he told you about." Trial Tr. at 313. A prosecutor is "entitled to argue forcefully and vigorously to the jury in support of [a] witness's credibility... based on evidence in the record." United States v. Spinelli, 551 F.3d

Page 5