Opinion ID: 71999
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Comment on Future Dangerousness

Text: 108 Cargill's final argument under this claim is similarly meritless. He asserts that the prosecutor made an improper reference in asking the jury, How would you like to be a correctional officer in an institution with that man in there with a life sentence and knowing he wanted to leave? In Tucker v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1480, 1486 (11th Cir.) (en banc ), vacated on other grounds, 474 U.S. 1001, 106 S.Ct. 517, 88 L.Ed.2d 452 (1985), reinstated, 802 F.2d 1293 (11th Cir.1986) (en banc ), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 911, 107 S.Ct. 1359, 94 L.Ed.2d 529 (1987), this court held that a prosecutor's similar remarks to the jury--Now what about the guards who would be guarding him down there? The guards would be, of course, exposed to him[ ]--constituted an appropriate means of pointing out the possibility of Tucker's future dangerousness and did not call for a speculative inquiry into prison conditions.