Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 138

529US1

Unit: $U34

[09-26-01 08:14:00] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 61 (2000)

63

Opinion of the Court

General Robinson, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and
Deborah Watson.

Beverly Van Ness argued the cause and ﬁled a brief for

respondent.*

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we consider whether it was constitutional
for a prosecutor, in her summation, to call the jury’s atten-
tion to the fact that the defendant had the opportunity to
hear all other witnesses testify and to tailor his testimony
accordingly.

I

Respondent’s trial on 19 sodomy and assault counts and
3 weapons counts ultimately came down to a credibility de-
termination. The alleged victim, Nessa Winder, and her
friend, Breda Keegan, testiﬁed that respondent physically
assaulted, raped, and orally and anally sodomized Winder,
and that he threatened both women with a handgun. Re-
spondent testiﬁed that he and Winder had engaged in con-
sensual vaginal intercourse. He further testiﬁed that dur-
ing an argument he had with Winder, he struck her once in
the face. He denied raping her or threatening either woman
with a handgun.

During summation, defense counsel charged Winder and
Keegan with lying. The prosecutor similarly focused on the
credibility of the witnesses. She stressed respondent’s in-
terest in the outcome of the trial, his prior felony conviction,
and his prior bad acts. She argued that respondent was a
“smooth slick character . . . who had an answer for every-

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were ﬁled for the Criminal
Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson;
and for the New York State District Attorneys Association by William J.
Fitzpatrick, Steven A. Hovani, and Michael J. Miller.

Deanne E. Maynard and Lisa Kemler ﬁled a brief for the National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging
afﬁrmance.