Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 163.0

529US1

Unit: $U34

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

88

PORTUONDO v. AGARD

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

*

*

*

In the end, we are left with a prosecutorial practice that
burdens the constitutional rights of defendants, that cannot
be justiﬁed by reference to the trial’s aim of sorting guilty
defendants from innocent ones, and that is not supported by
our case law. The restriction that the Court of Appeals
placed on generic accusations of tailoring is both moderate
and warranted. That court declared it permissible for the
prosecutor to comment on “what the defendant testiﬁed to
regarding pertinent events”—“the ﬁt between the testimony
of the defendant and other witnesses.” 159 F. 3d, at 99.
What is impermissible, the Second Circuit held, is simply and
only a summation “bolstering . . . the prosecution witnesses’
credibility vis-a-vis the defendant’s based solely on the de-
fendant’s exercise of a constitutional right to be present dur-
ing the trial.”
I would afﬁrm that sound judgment
and therefore dissent from the Court’s disposition.

Ibid.