The following excerpt is from USA v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2001):
Finally, Henderson argues he is entitled to a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Henderson did not object when the prosecutor made the statements he complains of. Accordingly, Henderson must show that the district court plainly erred when it did not intervene sua sponte to address the alleged misconduct. See United States v. Vences, 169 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir. 1999).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.