Thaddeus Beaulieu identified various individuals involved in carjackings and bank robberies in an interview with the FBI. One of the individuals was his cousin. The Government decided to call him to testify against him. Beaulieu refused to testify, and invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Government granted him immunity from prosecution, but he still refused to testify. The court appointed a prosecutor to prosecute a contempt charge against him.

The Government sought five years imprisonment. The prosecutor inserted his own version of events into the cross-examination of Beaulieu’s sole witness. For instance, when the witness disputed his version of events, he responded, “Do you think I’m as dumb as I look? You don’t think I know the law of perjury?” He again took the opportunity to testify as a fact witness by responding argumentatively, “I am telling you that’s not true.” He also made numerous statements during closing arguments that the Government conceded on appeal amounted to “prosecutorial misconduct.” The jury found Beaulieu guilty of criminal contempt.

Beaulieu argued that his conviction should be vacated because the prosecutor made numerous inappropriate remarks at trial. To prevail, he had to show that “the prosecutor made an improper remark,” United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313, 358 (5th Cir. 2007), and that it was prejudicial. See id. The Fifth Circuit found that he made both showings.

First, the Government conceded he had made numerous improper remarks. And he had closed by telling the jury that it must convict not because of the facts and law—but because to rule otherwise would “disrespect and dishonor a chief federal district court judge.” The Court determined that the misconduct was “overwhelming.” It said that the prosecutor’s comments “touched almost every part” of the proceedings, and that the district judge didn’t little to intervene. It vacated Beaulieu’s conviction.