Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MacKINNON.
MacKINNON, Circuit Judge:
Following a jury trial, Irving L. Fowler, a/k/a “Colgate” and Zebbie D. Gibson were adjudged guilty on three counts
of violating the White Slave Traffic Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421.
The principal criminal act for which Fowler and Gibson were indicted was that set forth in the First Count which charged that the appellants transported three young women (also referred to as victims) in interstate commerce “from the State of New York [Buffalo] to the District of Columbia for the purpose of prostitution, debauchery and other immoral purposes.”
Concurrent sentences of two years on each of Counts 1, 2 and 3 were imposed on each defendant. Counts 2 and 3 charged illegal transportation to the District of Columbia from Maryland after the party had arrived in the Washington area from Buffalo.
Appellants contend that the convictions should be reversed because: (1) the trial court failed to conduct a hearing to determine whether the prosecutor’s interview notes constituted a “statement” under the Jencks Act; (2) the trial court allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of Gibson’s financial circumstances prior to March 1978; and (3) the prosecutor referred to the general social consequences of prostitution, which had not been the subject of direct evidence.
I. THE JENCKS ACT ISSUE
The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500
provides that after a government witness
has testified on direct examination the defendant is entitled, on motion, to examine and use any “statement” of the witness that relates “to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness. . . . ”
The statute defines “statement” as “a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him .”
At the start of the trial defense counsel was given some Jencks Act material, and expressed his assent to the Government providing other material to the Court for an
in camera
inspection (Tr. Oct. 24, 1978, [Tr. I] 6). After the government witnesses testified, defense counsel requested the United States Attorney to produce any statements of the particular witness, as required by the Jencks Act
(Id.
34-5, 95). When the Government refused to give him the prosecutor’s notes, defense counsel requested
the court
to view them
in camera
as the Government had previously suggested
(Id.
34, 6). The court then examined the notes
in damera
and ruled that they were not “statements” within the provision of the Jencks Act because they had not been “adopted” by the witness.
(Id.
95). On this appeal appellants contend that the trial court erred in failing “to conduct any hearing to determine whether” the prosecutor’s notes constituted a “statement” under the Jencks Act. However, the defense never requested a hearing but merely, as previously stated, requested that the court view the notes
in camera.
It also appears that counsel had an opportunity for all the hearing that would have been necessary. When the witnesses who gave the statements
were on the stand counsel could have inquired whether they adopted, signed or otherwise approved any written statement made by them and thereby laid the foundation necessary to require production under the Jencks Act. We thus fail to find any error in the court’s handling of the matter.
We have also examined the prosecutor’s interview notes, which the court sealed. From such examination we similarly conclude that the notes were not required to be produced under the Jencks Act. The notes, are short, very cryptic, and only set forth a few references to scattered facts; they are incomplete and could do nothing more than jog the prosecutor’s memory as to a few items. Accordingly, they fall far short of being “statements”.
In short, the court was able by merely examining the notes and recalling the witness’ testimony to conclude that there was no showing that the notes constituted “statements” under the Jencks Act. In addition the notes are not signed by the witness and the defense never produced any evidence in cross-examination of the witnesses that either of them had “adopted or approved” the notes (Tr. I 38-70, 95-124).
Therefore, the court’s handling of the matter was not erroneous.
II. GIBSON’S FINANCIAL CONDITION
Gibson contends that the court erred when it permitted the prosecutor to ask “questions designed to cast doubt on whether [Gibson’s] income from his decorating business was sufficient to support his life style.” Gibson Br. 16. The gist of his argument is that the prosecutor unfairly implied that the only way he (Gibson) could support his opulent life style was through pimping. Fowler asserts that because of his association with Gibson, he too was prejudiced by this line of questioning. Fowler Br. 15. The Government characterizes these contentions as “an effort by appellants to extract from rather innocuous and generally unobjected evidence a scenario of impermissible prejudice.” Government Br. 8.
Appellants object to the prosecutor’s questioning at two points in the trial. First, they refer to the testimony of Gwendolyn Clark, Gibson’s fiancee and a prosecution witness.
During direct examination,
she identified the automobile pictured in “Exhibit Number 1,” a 1976 Lincoln Continental, as her car. She
volunteered
that she “purchased it from Mr. Gibson.” Tr. I 166. Then responding to questions, Clark stated that she paid Gibson “approximately $5600” for the car in January, 1978,
(Id.);
and that he borrowed the car in March, 1978, ostensibly for a “short vacation.”
Id.
167. Neither defense counsel objected to any part of this colloquy.
The prosecutor then asked Clark whether Gibson was “employed at the time?” Defense counsel objected for the first time, but the objection was overruled. The witness answered that Gibson was an “interior decorator.” Tr. I 168. The prosecutor continued his questioning, eliciting that Gibson returned the car after about “two or three days,” that he owned a 1970 Marquis at that time, and that he ran his “work” from that car rather than from an office.
Id.
169. The prosecutor then asked whether Gibson had “racks” in his car (presumably for use in decorating) and whether he had “a truck to do interior decorating?” Defense counsel objected, and although the objection was overruled (outside the hearing of the jury), the witness never answered the question.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MacKINNON.
MacKINNON, Circuit Judge:
Following a jury trial, Irving L. Fowler, a/k/a “Colgate” and Zebbie D. Gibson were adjudged guilty on three counts
of violating the White Slave Traffic Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421.
The principal criminal act for which Fowler and Gibson were indicted was that set forth in the First Count which charged that the appellants transported three young women (also referred to as victims) in interstate commerce “from the State of New York [Buffalo] to the District of Columbia for the purpose of prostitution, debauchery and other immoral purposes.”
Concurrent sentences of two years on each of Counts 1, 2 and 3 were imposed on each defendant. Counts 2 and 3 charged illegal transportation to the District of Columbia from Maryland after the party had arrived in the Washington area from Buffalo.
Appellants contend that the convictions should be reversed because: (1) the trial court failed to conduct a hearing to determine whether the prosecutor’s interview notes constituted a “statement” under the Jencks Act; (2) the trial court allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of Gibson’s financial circumstances prior to March 1978; and (3) the prosecutor referred to the general social consequences of prostitution, which had not been the subject of direct evidence.
I. THE JENCKS ACT ISSUE
The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500
provides that after a government witness
has testified on direct examination the defendant is entitled, on motion, to examine and use any “statement” of the witness that relates “to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness. . . . ”
The statute defines “statement” as “a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him .”
At the start of the trial defense counsel was given some Jencks Act material, and expressed his assent to the Government providing other material to the Court for an
in camera
inspection (Tr. Oct. 24, 1978, [Tr. I] 6). After the government witnesses testified, defense counsel requested the United States Attorney to produce any statements of the particular witness, as required by the Jencks Act
(Id.
34-5, 95). When the Government refused to give him the prosecutor’s notes, defense counsel requested
the court
to view them
in camera
as the Government had previously suggested
(Id.
34, 6). The court then examined the notes
in damera
and ruled that they were not “statements” within the provision of the Jencks Act because they had not been “adopted” by the witness.
(Id.
95). On this appeal appellants contend that the trial court erred in failing “to conduct any hearing to determine whether” the prosecutor’s notes constituted a “statement” under the Jencks Act. However, the defense never requested a hearing but merely, as previously stated, requested that the court view the notes
in camera.
It also appears that counsel had an opportunity for all the hearing that would have been necessary. When the witnesses who gave the statements
were on the stand counsel could have inquired whether they adopted, signed or otherwise approved any written statement made by them and thereby laid the foundation necessary to require production under the Jencks Act. We thus fail to find any error in the court’s handling of the matter.
We have also examined the prosecutor’s interview notes, which the court sealed. From such examination we similarly conclude that the notes were not required to be produced under the Jencks Act. The notes, are short, very cryptic, and only set forth a few references to scattered facts; they are incomplete and could do nothing more than jog the prosecutor’s memory as to a few items. Accordingly, they fall far short of being “statements”.
In short, the court was able by merely examining the notes and recalling the witness’ testimony to conclude that there was no showing that the notes constituted “statements” under the Jencks Act. In addition the notes are not signed by the witness and the defense never produced any evidence in cross-examination of the witnesses that either of them had “adopted or approved” the notes (Tr. I 38-70, 95-124).
Therefore, the court’s handling of the matter was not erroneous.
II. GIBSON’S FINANCIAL CONDITION
Gibson contends that the court erred when it permitted the prosecutor to ask “questions designed to cast doubt on whether [Gibson’s] income from his decorating business was sufficient to support his life style.” Gibson Br. 16. The gist of his argument is that the prosecutor unfairly implied that the only way he (Gibson) could support his opulent life style was through pimping. Fowler asserts that because of his association with Gibson, he too was prejudiced by this line of questioning. Fowler Br. 15. The Government characterizes these contentions as “an effort by appellants to extract from rather innocuous and generally unobjected evidence a scenario of impermissible prejudice.” Government Br. 8.
Appellants object to the prosecutor’s questioning at two points in the trial. First, they refer to the testimony of Gwendolyn Clark, Gibson’s fiancee and a prosecution witness.
During direct examination,
she identified the automobile pictured in “Exhibit Number 1,” a 1976 Lincoln Continental, as her car. She
volunteered
that she “purchased it from Mr. Gibson.” Tr. I 166. Then responding to questions, Clark stated that she paid Gibson “approximately $5600” for the car in January, 1978,
(Id.);
and that he borrowed the car in March, 1978, ostensibly for a “short vacation.”
Id.
167. Neither defense counsel objected to any part of this colloquy.
The prosecutor then asked Clark whether Gibson was “employed at the time?” Defense counsel objected for the first time, but the objection was overruled. The witness answered that Gibson was an “interior decorator.” Tr. I 168. The prosecutor continued his questioning, eliciting that Gibson returned the car after about “two or three days,” that he owned a 1970 Marquis at that time, and that he ran his “work” from that car rather than from an office.
Id.
169. The prosecutor then asked whether Gibson had “racks” in his car (presumably for use in decorating) and whether he had “a truck to do interior decorating?” Defense counsel objected, and although the objection was overruled (outside the hearing of the jury), the witness never answered the question.
Appellants also take exception to certain portions of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of appellant Fowler.
After Fowler
testified that he drove to Washington with the four women for a “vacation,” the prosecutor asked whether Gibson was also on a vacation. Fowler answered that Gibson was “on vacation . . . [from] his work . . . [as] an interior decorator.” Tr. II 48. The prosecutor asked whether Gibson had an office, and after the objection by defense counsel was overruled, Fowler said no. The prosecutor then asked if Gibson “work[ed] out of” a truck.
Id.
49. The defense objection was overruled, and Fowler explained that Gibson used a 1970 Mercury Marquis in his work. The prosecutor concluded this colloquy by asking a series of questions about the 1976 Lincoln that Gibson sold to his fiancee. Objections were overruled, and Fowler stated that Gibson did not use the 1976 Lincoln in his interior decorating business.
Id.
49-50.
Taken together, the two colloquys identified by appellants included the following testimony: (1) Gibson sold a 1976 Lincoln Continental to Clark for $5600; (2) Gibson borrowed the car from Clark for his “vacation” to Washington, D.C.; (3) Gibson was an interior decorator; (4) Gibson used a 1970 Marquis in his interior decorating business; (5) Gibson did not have an office; and (6) Gibson did not use a truck in his business. Defense counsel contends that questioning about these matters substantially prejudiced appellants’ right to a fair trial, and therefore that they are entitled to a new trial. We disagree.
First, most of this numbered testimony was elicited without objection. Defense counsel never objected to Clark’s testimony that Gibson sold the 1976 Continental to her (1); that he borrowed the car from her for his vacation (2); and that Gibson ran his business from his 1970 Marquis, rather than an office (4, 5). Under the Federal Rules of Evidence,
[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected and . . . [i]n case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record . ...
Fed.R.Evid. 103(a). “If testimony, even though improper, is introduced into evidence without objection, it becomes part of the record and is available to be considered for its probative value by the trier of fact.”
United States v. Jamerson,
549 F.2d 1263, 1267 (9th Cir. 1977). Courts will make an exception to this rule “only if the admission of the testimony constituted plain error affecting substantial rights.”
United States v. Dawson,
576 F.2d 656, 658 (5th Cir. 1978),
cert. denied,
439 U.S. 1127, 99 S.Ct. 1043, 59 L.Ed.2d 88 (1979).
Accord: United States v. Popejoy,
578 F.2d 1346, 1350 (10th Cir. 1978),
cert. denied,
439 U.S. 896, 99 S.Ct. 257, 58 L.Ed.2d 243 (1979);
United States v. Smith,
160 U.S.App.D.C. 221, 226, 490 F.2d 789, 794 (D.C.Cir.1974).
See
Fed.R.Evid. 103(a) and (d), Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). In other words,
[i]n order to require a new trial, the prejudicial effect of improper matter, viewed in the context of the particular trial, must not be overwhelmed ... by evidence of guilt. Rather, a significant possibility must exist that, considering the other evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense, the statement had a substantial impact on the verdict of the jury.
United States v. Archbold-Newball,
554 F.2d 665, 680 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1000, 98 S.Ct. 644, 54 L.Ed.2d 496 (1977). As we explain
infra,
the Government’s case is “exceptionally strong.” Since appellants have not established that the testimony at issue here was critical to the Government’s case, we hold that admis
sion of that testimony was not error, much less plain error warranting a new trial.
Second, we are not persuaded that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony that was objected to. The prosecutor’s questions, which established that Gibson borrowed from his fiancee the 1976 Lincoln Continental was used to transport the four women to the District of Columbia, were relevant. Interstate transportation is one of the principal elements of the offense, and how this was accomplished, who drove, who furnished the car, who paid the expenses, who arranged a place for the young women to stay, etc., is probative of one of the principal elements of the offense that the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, Fowler claimed that appellants went to Washington on a “vacation.” It was vacation from school for Fowler but vacation from
work
for Gibson. Gibson’s fiancee, who was hardly an impartial witness, also testified that he borrowed the car for a “short vacation.” Tr. I 167. It was thus permissible for the prosecutor to explore the
vacation defense
further. The suggestion that appellants were on vacation implied that they engaged in a regular occupation or activity other than pimping. The prosecutor was entitled to test the
bona fides
of this claim, for if either appellant had no regular business or activity other than pimping, then the trip to Washington would hardly be a “vacation.” It certainly was no intended “vacation” for the young women.
III. THE STATEMENT MADE IN ARGUMENT AS TO SOCIAL POLICY
Appellant Fowler contends:
The prosecutor, during his rebuttal argument, attempted to prejudice Fowler’s defense by bringing matters to the jury’s attention that had absolutely no basis in evidence. After characterizing the offenses charged against the defendants as “dirty” and “salacious”, he continued:
What’s really dirty is putting the women to prostitution because of the Clark and Eubanks show. (Mr. Ringell, Gibson’s attorhey) said they are innocent of selling themselves on the street, that is not an innocent act, but what they are innocent about is the consequences of what happens to them when they are prostitutes, sold between pimps, addicted to narcotics. (Tr. Oct. 25 at p. 113).
These remarks strongly suggested to the jury that they should consider, while deliberating the
specific
charges against the defendants, the
general
social consequences of prostitution related activity— especially the selling of women among their pimps
and
the addiction of prostitutes to narcotics. The prosecutor, however, had introduced no evidence during trial to support any of his assertions. Fowler’s attorney made an immediate objection to the remarks, which the court overruled by saying it would
“take judicial notice of things.”
Fowler Br. 17 (emphasis added). While it does not completely excuse the latter remark by the court, it is significant that the court’s passing remark did
not
instruct the jury to take judicial notice of anything.
Gibson’s counsel characterizes the prosecutor’s remarks in the following terms:
In the instant case, the prosecutor, in closing argument, made improper and unwarranted references to the economic status of the transported women and to their asserted innocence of the social consequences of prostitution, including sales between pimps and addiction to narcotics.
Gibson Br. 24-25.
A complete answer to the attack on the prosecutor’s remarks and the court’s comment necessitates a brief review of the facts of the offense and the strength of the Government’s case.
Fowler and Gibson were friends in Buffalo, New York, who induced (we use abbreviations instead of the victim’s actual names) A and C to come to Washington, D.C. to “make some money” from prostitution “[bjecause it was easier down here.” Tr. I 82. The girls were both young: 20 and 18 (maybe 17), respectively. C had just finished high school and neither victim according to their testimony had ever previously
engaged in prostitution. Shortly before Fowler requested A to go to Washington he had discussed with her whether she “could prostitute and give a man the money. . . ” She replied “I think so if I thought that the man was in my corner or if he was going to provide for me and take care of me.”
Id.
17. Fowler had also discussed with A: “Just whether or not I thought I could make money for a man.”
Id.
72.
Accord: Id.
50, 74. Gibson also had a prior conversation with C about coming to Washington to “make money.”
Id.
82.
In the vernacular of the parties this meant to “make money” from commercial prostitution. Tr. I 72. The vernacular of various criminals is not a shield to understanding their meaning which may be the subject of evidence, inference and deduction by juries and trial and appellate courts.
Batsell
v.
United States,
217 F.2d 257, 262 (8th Cir. 1954);
Parente v. United States,
249 F.2d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1957);
Wiley v. United States,
257 F.2d 900, 908 (8th Cir. 1958);
Enriquez v. United States,
293 F.2d 788, 795 (9th Cir. 1961);
Mack v. United States,
326 F.2d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1964);
United States v. Austrew,
202 F.Supp. 816, 820 (D.Md.1962).
Both A and C agreed with Fowler and Gibson to come to Washington for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. When Fowler (with Gibson) picked them up in Buffalo in a 1976 Lincoln Continental, two other women that we shall call B and D, were in the car and were to be passengers on the trip for the same purpose. This appearance of a stable “[sjurprised” A and C. Tr. I 18.
The entire party arrived in the Washington area about noon and went to a house in nearby Maryland belonging to a friend of Fowler. The women then bathed, ate and rested and that night the four victims were immediately driven by Fowler with Gibson, to 14th & K Street. Tr. I 19, 84-85. On the trip to 14th Street there was “discussion on how much to accept and . . how much you were not supposed to accept.”
Id.
20. It was agreed that the women should charge $25 for oral sodomy and $35 for sexual intercourse.
Id.
20, 88, 107, 108. Fowler cautioned that they should “not . accept a smaller amount of money for what [they] were going to do with whoever”.
Id.
21. The prices C actually offered to a plainclothes police officer were within the range agreed upon.
Id.
129.
Fowler and Gibson left the victims on 14th Street and spent the late evening and early morning hours together, apart from any of the women, in several night clubs. Tr. II 25-28. A testified that when the victims were let out of the car:
We were told [by Fowler] that a young lady would approach us and tell us all we wanted to know about working on the street in D.C.
MR. RINGELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. Could she be more specific as to who we are talking about?
THE COURT: I think that would be helpful.
THE WITNESS: I can’t recall the young lady’s name but—
THE COURT: She was going to come up to you; was that it?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: What was she going to tell you?
MR. RINGELL: Your Honor, the question is who told her this.
MR. HARDY: I think counsel will have a good opportunity in cross examination to go into these matters.
THE COURT: It would be helpful, Mr. Hardy, if we found out ahead of time.
Who told you someone was going to meet you?
THE WITNESS: Mr. Fowler did.
******
THE WITNESS:
He
[Fowler]
told us that a young lady would approach us and ask us if we were from Buffalo and she would give us all the information we wanted to know.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Did such a woman approach you?
A Yes, she did.
Q Now, what happened after you got out of the car with these instructions?
A We got out of the car and we were on 14th and we just waited until the young woman came and approached us and asked us if we were from Buffalo. * * * * * *
THE WITNESS: And we told the young lady yes, we were and
she answered all the questions that we had to ask her.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Were you given directions as to where
to
take the tricks or the Johns, whatever they are called
A Yes.
Q Where was that supposed to be?
A She really didn’t give a name of the hotel. She just pointed in a direction and she said that most of the girls in D.C. just rode around in the cars to a parking lot. I don’t know the name of the street, but it’s right around the corner from 14th.
Tr. I 22-24 (emphasis added).
C was arrested that evening charged with solicitation for prostitution, jailed and eventually testified before the grand jury. She never rejoined the Fowler-Gibson party. The other three victims stayed in the Washington vicinity for two more days and on both nights were transported, by Fowler and Gibson, from the house in Maryland to 14th Street to engage in prostitution. Following C’s arrest Fowler and Gibson warned A, B, and D, “Just to be careful more or less.” Tr. I 27. This is highly persuasive evidence of Fowler’s and Gibson’s knowing participation in prostitution. But despite the cautionary instructions, A and D were subsequently arrested.
At trial, Gibson refused to take the stand while Fowler testified and admitted practically all the physical facts but denied that he or Gibson knew that the
women
intended to engage in prostitution in Washington. The jury obviously disbelieved him and we must accept the facts most favorable to their verdict.
Burks
v.
United States,
437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 13 (1978);
Hamling v. United States,
418 U.S. 87, 124, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974);
Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942);
United States v. Anderson,
165 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 509 F.2d 312, 331 (D.C.Cir.1974),
cert. denied
420 U.S. 991, 95 S.Ct. 1427, 43 L.Ed.2d 672 (1975).
The facts here are typical of those in the reported Mann Act cases, except that the case against appellants is exceptionally strong, and appellants’ crimes are particularly egregious. Fowler and Gibson involved very young women, one just graduated from high school, in commercial prostitution. This was not merely a personal venture with two young friends. When appellants “surprised” A and C by showing up with B and D for the trip to Washington, it became apparent that they had recruited a “stable” and that for them prostitution was big business. Appellants’ knowledge of “white slave” traffic was corroborated by the rapidity with which they dumped the four victims at 14th and K Streets, the local center for on-street prostitution. In addition, most telling is appellants’ apparent relationship with an on-street representative of the local organization, whom the victims were told would meet and instruct them in the local
modus operandi.
The victims were met and instructed as promised, and it would be naive to think that this “service” was performed without prior understanding that the instructor was to be compensated from the proceeds of the prostitution. In short, Fowler and Gibson were engaged in supplying young women for what appears to be organized prostitution in Washington, and this is what Fowler must have been referring to when he told C that it “was easier in Washington.”
With this background, we consider the prosecutor’s statement that prostitutes are “sold between pimps, addicted to narcotics,” (Tr. II 113), and the court’s answer to defense objections that “[t]he jury are not naive. . . . We will take judicial notice of things.” Id. We do not doubt that the prosecutor accurately depicted conditions that are very prevalent in the “profession.” It could be argued that such facts are “not subject to reasonable dispute in
that they are either (1) generally known or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). But there was never any proffer on that basis. And while the prosecutor’s statement may be accurate, not all truthful statements are admissible. Despite the prevalence of the conditions mentioned by the prosecutor, on this record the remark was error because those conditions are not relevant to the guilt or innocence of the appellants, and the court’s comment was also erroneous. The question, then, is whether these errors justify reversal of the conviction and a new trial? We hold that they do not.
The test as to whether an error is reversible is delineated in
Kotteakos v. United States,
328 U.S. 750, 764-65, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946):
If, when all is said and done, the conviction is sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect, the verdict and the judgment should stand, except perhaps where the departure is from a constitutional norm or a specific command of Congress. . But if one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected. The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather, even so, whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.
Similarly, we stated in
Gaither v. United States,
134 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 172, 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (D.C.Cir.1969):
where timely objection was made and pressed on appeal, we must carefully examine the error committed to determine whether it sufficiently prejudiced appellants to call for reversal.
. The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.
Applying this standard, we find that the case was not close, that the comments did not address any essential factual element in the case that was relevant to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, that it is common knowledge that prostitution is a very great evil, that the jury were instructed to consider only testimony “heard from the witness stand [and] the single exhibit” (Tr. II 120), and that the verdict was not “substantially swayed by the error.”
Kotteakos, supra.
We therefore conclude that no substantial rights of appellants were affected, and that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Chapman v. California,
386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The convictions are affirmed.
Judgment accordingly.