Prosecutor Misconduct
The Kansas Supreme Court found last month that a prosecutor committed misconduct in the conviction of defendant John Marshall. State v. Marshall, No.101,641 (July 2012). At trial, Marshal was convicted of "burglary of a nonresidence, criminal damage to property, and obstruction of a legal duty." On appeal, Marshall challenged his conviction based on an eyewitness identification of him.
Specifically, Marshall argued that "the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by vouching for the eyewitness' credibility." The court found that the prosecutor's statement that "I would submit to you that he is an honest person," when speaking about the witness, was improper because '"prosecutors may not offer juries their personal opinions as to the credibility of witnesses."' quoting State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 19 (2010).
However, the court held that the prosecutor's statements did not give way to Marshall's right to a fair trial. The court looked at three factors before determining that the prosecutor's statements were not prejudicial:
First, was the misconduct gross and flagrant? Second, was the misconduct motivated by ill will? Third, was the evidence of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have had little weight in the mind of a juror."
The court found that the prosecutor's statement was not gloss and flagrant, not motivated by ill will, and that "there is no reasonable possibility the prosecutor's statements affected the verdict in this case."
For More Information Please Contact:
Erickson Scherff, LLC
Attorneys at law
10990 Quivira Suite 200
Overland Park, KS 66210
Tel (913) 948-9490
Fax (913) 491-6398
Don't Forget To Visit Our Website:
www.ericksonscherff.com
The Kansas Supreme Court found last month that a prosecutor committed misconduct in the conviction of defendant John Marshall. State v. Marshall, No.101,641 (July 2012). At trial, Marshal was convicted of "burglary of a nonresidence, criminal damage to property, and obstruction of a legal duty." On appeal, Marshall challenged his conviction based on an eyewitness identification of him.
Specifically, Marshall argued that "the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by vouching for the eyewitness' credibility." The court found that the prosecutor's statement that "I would submit to you that he is an honest person," when speaking about the witness, was improper because '"prosecutors may not offer juries their personal opinions as to the credibility of witnesses."' quoting State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 19 (2010).
However, the court held that the prosecutor's statements did not give way to Marshall's right to a fair trial. The court looked at three factors before determining that the prosecutor's statements were not prejudicial:
First, was the misconduct gross and flagrant? Second, was the misconduct motivated by ill will? Third, was the evidence of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have had little weight in the mind of a juror."
The court found that the prosecutor's statement was not gloss and flagrant, not motivated by ill will, and that "there is no reasonable possibility the prosecutor's statements affected the verdict in this case."
For More Information Please Contact:
Erickson Scherff, LLC
Attorneys at law
10990 Quivira Suite 200
Overland Park, KS 66210
Tel (913) 948-9490
Fax (913) 491-6398
Don't Forget To Visit Our Website:
www.ericksonscherff.com
No comments:
Post a Comment