The prosecutor's examination questions to witnesses and remarks in closing argument to the jury, which stated the prosecutor's personal opinion of witnesses' credibility; suggested to the jury that it should abandon its common sense when considering these kinds of cases; expressed the prosecutor's personal belief on matters outside the evidence; vouched for the State of Kansas; referred to matters not in evidence; vouched for the credibility of the State's witness; solicited testimony from the defendant on the credibility of another witness; buttressed the credibility of the State's witness; and appealed to the passion and prejudice of the jury, were improper and constituted prejudicial error because the questions and remarks called the jurors' attention to matters that would not have been proper for them to consider in arriving at their verdict. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.Here we are, eight years after Pabst, still with these kinds of problems. I know some prosecutors who chastise the ADO (and other defense attorneys) for continuing to raise prosecutorial misconduct issues. In fact, overall, I think the majority of prosecutors have learned better practices, but these cases are still out there and plenty of them.
[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on January 5, 2009.]
No comments:
Post a Comment