Opinion ID: 453004
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Donnelly v. DeChristoforo

Text: 83 Notwithstanding the dangers discussed above, our review of a state prosecutor's argument on a petition for writ of habeas corpus is more limited than if we were examining errors of a federal prosecutor on direct appeal. The Berger, Morris and Hall cases were federal prosecutions and, while their standards provide guidance for reviewing claims on habeas corpus, Houston v. Estelle, 569 F.2d 372, 380-81 (5th Cir.1978), our predecessor court has noted that Georgia prosecutors are allowed more freedom in jury arguments than their federal counterparts. Bryant v. Caldwell, 484 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 981, 94 S.Ct. 1572, 39 L.Ed.2d 878 (1974). 84 In Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974), the Supreme Court set forth the standard for reviewing habeas corpus petitions raising the impropriety of a state prosecutor's argument. In that case, petitioner was tried in Massachusetts for a first-degree murder. During closing, the prosecutor referred to defense counsel by saying They said they hope that you find him not guilty. I quite frankly think that they hope that you find him guilty of something a little less than first-degree murder. Counsel objected that the remark, coupled with the fact that a co-defendant had pled guilty during the trial, constituted a suggestion to the jury that the defendant had sought to plead guilty to a lesser-included offense and was refused by the prosecution. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the remark. 85 The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that the remark may have been improper, reversed the lower court's grant of habeas relief. In holding that the relevant inquiry was whether the remark violated due process, the majority stated that not every trial error or infirmity ... constitutes a 'failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice.' Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 [62 S.Ct. 280, 289, 86 L.Ed. 166] (1941). 416 U.S. at 642, 94 S.Ct. at 1871. After examining the isolated and possibly unintentional remark, particularly in light of the curative instruction given by the trial court, the Court expressed its inability to conclude that this incident made [DeChristoforo's] trial so fundamentally unfair as to deny him due process. 416 U.S. at 645, 94 S.Ct. at 1872. 86 The Donnelly decision provides important guidelines for reviewing allegedly improper prosecutorial argument. Of primary importance is the need to examine the entire context of the judicial proceeding. Thus, it is not our duty to ask whether a particular remark was unfair; we are concerned with whether it rendered the entire trial unfair. In this regard, isolated or ambiguous or unintentional remarks must be viewed with lenity. Finally, the giving of a curative instruction by the trial court may remedy effects of improper comments. But see Houston v. Estelle, 569 F.2d 372 (5th Cir.1978) (prosecutor's continuous use of shocking argument despite numerous sustained objections by defense counsel violated due process despite curative instruction). 87 While these principles are helpful, agreeing upon fundamental fairness as the relevant standard does not readily resolve particular cases. The Donnelly Court recognized that the process of constitutional line drawing in this regard is necessarily imprecise. 416 U.S. at 645, 94 S.Ct. at 1872. Fundamental fairness is itself but one of many verbal formulations of the scope of due process as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to our Constitution. See, e.g., Hobby v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 104 S.Ct. 3093, 3096, 82 L.Ed.2d 260, 266 (1984) (discrimination in selection of grand jury foreperson does not undermine the integrity of the indictment so as to violate due process); Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 637-38, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 2389-90, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980) (Alabama law precluding jury in capital case from receiving instruction on lesser-included offense violates due process because it enhances the risk of an unwarranted conviction); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172-73, 72 S.Ct. 205, 209-10, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952) (use of stomach pump to force production of concealed narcotics violates due process because it shocks the conscience and offends a sense of justice). An examination of a recent Supreme Court decision will provide additional guidance in ascertaining the appropriate standard of review.