Oregon Appellate Ct - Sept. 24, 2014
by: Abassos and Francis Gieringer • September 24, 2014 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> *Potential Prosecutorial Misconduct Must Be Looked At In Context </summary> A prosecutor's potentially burden-shifting statement in closing should be examine...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| − | A prosecutor's potentially burden-shifting statement in closing should be examined in context. Here, the prosecutor told the jury during rebuttal, “[y]ou have to believe one story or another. Two stories to choose from. And you have to decide which one actually makes sense.” Because the trial court instructed the jury at least four times of the state’s burden, the prosecutor reiterated the burden of proof, and made her statement only after defense counsel stated in closing that complainant was an “over-the-top exaggerator,” the prosecutor’s statements were only “advocacy about how the jury should assess the credibility of the witness,” and not a misrepresentation of the state’s burden. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A150749.pdf State v. Purrier], | + | A prosecutor's potentially burden-shifting statement in closing should be examined in context. Here, the prosecutor told the jury during rebuttal, “[y]ou have to believe one story or another. Two stories to choose from. And you have to decide which one actually makes sense.” Because the trial court instructed the jury at least four times of the state’s burden, the prosecutor reiterated the burden of proof, and made her statement only after defense counsel stated in closing that complainant was an “over-the-top exaggerator,” the prosecutor’s statements were only “advocacy about how the jury should assess the credibility of the witness,” and not a misrepresentation of the state’s burden. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A150749.pdf State v. Purrier], 265 Or App ___ (2014) |
{{wl-publish: 2014-09-24 10:34:45 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} | {{wl-publish: 2014-09-24 10:34:45 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} | ||
| + | {{wl-publish: 2014-09-24 10:34:45 -0700 | Francis Gieringer }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:38, September 25, 2014
A prosecutor's potentially burden-shifting statement in closing should be examined in context. Here, the prosecutor told the jury during rebuttal, “[y]ou have to believe one story or another. Two stories to choose from. And you have to decide which one actually makes sense.” Because the trial court instructed the jury at least four times of the state’s burden, the prosecutor reiterated the burden of proof, and made her statement only after defense counsel stated in closing that complainant was an “over-the-top exaggerator,” the prosecutor’s statements were only “advocacy about how the jury should assess the credibility of the witness,” and not a misrepresentation of the state’s burden. State v. Purrier, 265 Or App ___ (2014)
