Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 139

529US1

Unit: $U34

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

64

PORTUONDO v. AGARD

Opinion of the Court

thing,” App. 45, and that part of his testimony “sound[ed]
rehearsed,” id., at 48. Finally, over defense objection, the
prosecutor remarked:

“You know, ladies and gentlemen, unlike all the other
witnesses in this case the defendant has a beneﬁt and
the beneﬁt that he has, unlike all the other witnesses, is
he gets to sit here and listen to the testimony of all the
other witnesses before he testiﬁes.
.

.
“That gives you a big advantage, doesn’t it. You get
to sit here and think what am I going to say and how
am I going to say it? How am I going to ﬁt it into the
evidence?
.

.

.

.

.

.

.
I never said he was stupid. . . .

.

“He’s a smart man.

He used everything to his advantage.”

Id., at 49.

The trial court rejected defense counsel’s claim that these
last comments violated respondent’s right to be present at
trial. The court stated that respondent’s status as the last
witness in the case was simply a matter of fact, and held that
his presence during the entire trial, and the advantage that
Id., at 54.
this afforded him, “may fairly be commented on.”
Respondent was convicted of one count of anal sodomy and
two counts of third-degree possession of a weapon. On di-
rect appeal, the New York Supreme Court reversed one of
the convictions for possession of a weapon but afﬁrmed the
remaining convictions. People v. Agard, 199 App. Div. 2d
401, 606 N. Y. S. 2d 239 (2d Dept. 1993). The New York
Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v. Agard,
83 N. Y. 2d 868, 635 N. E. 2d 298 (1994).

Respondent then ﬁled a petition for habeas corpus relief
in federal court, claiming, inter alia, that the prosecutor’s
comments violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to
be present at trial and confront his accusers. He further
claimed that the comments violated his Fourteenth Amend-