United States v. Chong Lam

On no fewer than eight occasions during its closing and rebuttal arguments, the *206government misstated the legal standard governing the key issue disputed by the parties at trial — whether the genuine and allegedly counterfeit marks were “substantially indistinguishable.” Six of these misstatements occurred after the district court sustained the first of four defense objections to the remarks. Nevertheless, the district court denied Lam and Chan’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial, concluding that, although the statements were prejudicial, the court’s curative instruction negated the prejudice.…