US v. Edward Caper, No. 10-4867 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4867 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWARD CAPERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cr-00056-WDQ-1) Submitted: October 31, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011 Before DAVIS, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Susan A. Hensler, Staff Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Benjamin M. Block, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward Capers was found guilty by a jury of being a felon in possession ยง 922(g) (2006). of a weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. On appeal, he contests certain statements made by the Government in closing arguments, alleging they deprived him of a fair trial. We discretion to For the reasons that follow, we affirm. note that control a district closing court argument, possesses and its exercise discretion will not be overturned absent a clear abuse. States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 226 (4th broad Cir. of United 2010). A defendant, to succeed on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, must show that the prosecutor s remarks were improper and that they prejudicially affected his deprive him of a fair trial. substantial rights so as to United States v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175, 185-86 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing review factors). In this case all but one comment is subject to plain error, as the trial counsel failed to object to the comments at the time. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 32 (1993). We find no plain error committed by the district court during closing arguments. inviting the jurors to Regarding the prosecutor s comments put themselves in the shoes of the victims the so-called golden rule comments we find no abuse of discretion. The court sustained Capers objection to 2 the argument, overwhelming. and the Accordingly, with of Capers guilt was Thus, we do not find that this argument deprived Capers of a fair trial. dispense evidence oral Scheetz, 293 F.3d at 185. we affirm argument Capers because the conviction. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
