Opinion ID: 1158185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Improper Argument Based on Letter in Unrelated Case

Text: In his closing argument at the penalty phase of this capital trial, the prosecution not only relied on religious authority, as I discussed earlier, but he also improperly urged the jurors to return a verdict of death based on extraneous matters. After referring to a notorious but unrelated criminal case, the prosecutor went on to tell the jurors: There has been a lot of criticism of the Court system and most of it is well deserved. Much of what we do is done in too much secrecy. People have no idea what goes on. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... And you don't realize it, but the twelve of you who decide this case can make a statement. And there is nothing wrong about making a statement. The statement can be directly to him. And if there is a lesson to be learned from anybody else or by anybody else, then so about be it. As jurors, you can do something. You can take a position now.... The prosecutor then announced that he would read a letter to a judge from a father whose son had been murdered.... Over defense objection, the prosecutor read this letter aloud to the jurors as part of his argument: `There has been a furor in the media over the condition of our justice system, particularly juvenile justice. The decision made here today will not ease the pain of the family and the friends of Rod Sullivan. Nothing can do that. We are learning to live with it. But it is our hope that today's decision will bring back some of the confidence and trust that we in the community once had in this system.' The prosecutor then added, And that's all I want you to do. That argument was improper. It was not based on the facts of the case or the law applicable to those facts, but was a blatant appeal to the jury to sentence defendant to death based on considerations that had nothing to do with the  individualized determination the jury was constitutionally required to make. ( Zant v. Stephens (1983) 462 U.S. 862, 879 [77 L.Ed.2d 235, 251, 103 S.Ct. 2733].) The prosecutor's observation of a perceived furor in the media over the condition of our justice system was `totally irrelevant to the sentencing process' applicable to this defendant. ( Johnson v. Mississippi (1988) 486 U.S. 578, 585 [100 L.Ed.2d 575, 584, 108 S.Ct. 1981].) The majority attempts to sanitize this misconduct by quoting from People v. Ghent, supra, 43 Cal.3d at page 771: Isolated, brief references to retribution or community vengeance... although potentially inflammatory, do not constitute misconduct so long as such arguments do not form the principal basis for advocating the imposition of the death penalty. Ghent, however, has no application here. Our opinion in Ghent dealt with prosecutorial references to retribution and community outrage against the particular defendant in that case, not some more generalized outrage or furor over the criminal justice system. Moreover, the references in this case were neither isolated nor brief. The prosecutor's send a message theme was an important part of his closing argument. If, as the majority holds, prosecutors can urge juries to impose sentences of death on defendants based on the perceived failings of the criminal justice system in unrelated cases, the individualized determination the United States Supreme Court has stated is required in capital cases is effectively a nullity.