Is there any case law where a prosecutor improperly argued and effectively testified why he did not use Orent as a witness?

Regarding the assertion that the prosecutor improperly argued and effectively testified why he did not use Orent as a witness, it is established that attorneys are generally prohibited from taking the witness stand to testify in a case they are litigating because it raises a risk that jurors will be unduly influenced by the prestige and prominence of the prosecutor's office and will base their credibility determinations on improper factors. United States v. Edwards, 154 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 1998). Related concerns for maintaining the appearance of justice and public confidence in the administration of justice are especially significant where the testifying attorney represents the prosecuting arm and is an advocate of the government. Id. The rule against an attorney's testifying functions to maintain a boundary between the advocate and

Page 138

the witness by preventing an attorney from appearing as both a witness and an advocate in the same litigation. United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 552-53 (9th Cir. 1985). When, in context, a prosecutor is portrayed as being personally involved with an investigation or transaction that is in evidence, it can be a violation of the rules against vouching or advocates acting as witnesses. See, United States v. Hermanek, 289 F.3d 1076, 1089-99 (2002).