Is there any reason to deny Mathieu's motion for a new trial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct?

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mathieu's motion for a new trial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. See United States v. Forbes, 790 F.3d 403, 406 (2d Cir. 2015) (reviewing a district court's denial of a Rule 33 motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion). First, Mathieu is unable to show that the prosecution's questions during cross-examination were improper. We have distinguished between cross-examination questions that compel a defendant

Page 6

to characterize a government witness as a liarwhich are improperand those that compel a defendant merely to characterize a government witness's testimony as mistaken. See United States v. Gaind, 31 F.3d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 1994) ("[T]here is a significant difference between these formulations. Asking a witness whether a previous witness who gave conflicting testimony is 'mistaken' highlights the objective conflict without requiring the witness to condemn the prior witness as a purveyor of deliberate falsehood, i.e., a 'liar.'"). The prosecution's questions here fall on the proper side of the line.²