Opinion ID: 2614563
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Alleged Impermissible Appeal to Racial Prejudice

Text: In this case, the deputy prosecutor's reference to Rogan as a black, military guy was clearly inflammatory inasmuch as it raised the issue of and cast attention to Rogan's race. Because there was no dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator in this case, Rogan's race was not a legitimate area of inquiry inasmuch as race was irrelevant to the determination of whether Rogan committed the acts charged. The prosecution concedes that the deputy prosecutor's comment was ill-advised. Indeed, the deputy prosecutor's comment had the potential of distracting the jury from considering only the evidence presented at trial. It is therefore inescapable that the deputy prosecutor's reference to Rogan as a black, military guy was an improper emotional appeal that could foreseeably have inflamed the jury. The deputy prosecutor's inflammatory reference to Rogan's race was further compounded by the statement that the incident was every mother's nightmare, which was a blatantly improper plea to evoke sympathy for the Complainant's mother and represented an implied invitation to the jury to put themselves in her position. Like the deputy prosecutor's reference to Rogan's race, the every mother's nightmare comment was not relevant for purposes of considering whether Rogan committed the acts charged. In response, the prosecution argues that the deputy prosecutor's comments were in rebuttal to defense counsel's closing argument that it was the Complainant's parents alone who wanted Rogan convicted. We disagree. As Rogan argues, the deputy prosecutor's comments do not rebut defense counsel's argument that it was the Complainant's parents alone who wanted Rogan convicted. Instead, the deputy prosecutor's comment that finding some black, military guy on top of your daughter is every mother's nightmare supports the theory that it was the Complainant's parents alone who wanted Rogan convicted. Indeed, the deputy prosecutor said, Yeah, you can bet the parents wanted a conviction. Under these circumstances, we cannot excuse the deputy prosecutor's reference to Rogan as some black, military guy on the basis that the comment was made to rebut the defense counsel's theory that it was the Complainant's parents alone who wanted Rogan convicted. In light of the foregoing, we note that arguments by the prosecution contrived to stimulate racial prejudice represent a brazen attempt to subvert a criminal defendant's right to trial by an impartial jury as guaranteed by both the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 14 of the Hawai`i Constitution. Such arguments foster jury bias through racial stereotypes and group predilections, thereby promoting an atmosphere that is inimical to the consideration of the evidence adduced at trial. Moreover, such an appeal to racial prejudice threatens our multicultural society and constitutional values. We must therefore recognize that [o]ur government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Accordingly, appeals to racial prejudice lack the professionalism and decorum required of attorneys who practice before the bar of the courts of Hawai`i and will not be tolerated. For this reason, we further hold that references to race that do not have an objectively legitimate purpose constitute a particularly egregious form of prosecutorial misconduct.