Opinion ID: 2167211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: commonwealth's comment on defendant's credibility

Text: Grundy similarly argues that the Commonwealth improperly commented on his motivation to lie when the prosecution stated during closing arguments that the jury should compare Grundy's credibility with Marlow's: I want you to look at the credibility of these witnesses and want you to look at what they had to gain and what they had to lose by lying to you. . . . What does Johnny Marlow have to gain? He doesn't have anything to gain. . . . So when you go back there in the jury room, I want you to look at credibility. Look at what Johnny Marlow has to gain and has to lose and look at what the defendant has to lose. The defendant has the greatest motive of all to sit here and lie to you. He could lose his freedom. . . . He has the greatest motive in the world to lie and that's what he's trying to do here. Grundy argues that the Commonwealth's argument improperly diminished the defendant's presumption of innocence by inferring a motivation to lie from his status as a defendant. We resolved this identical issue in Tamme v. Commonwealth [9] and held that the prosecution may comment on a testifying defendant's credibility: Nor did the prosecutor's argument that Appellant had a motive to lie contravene the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor is entitled to attack a defendant's credibility if the defendant testifies as a witness on his own behalf. An accused who testifies on his own behalf is subject to the same rules as an ordinary witness. [10] We find Grundy's argument unpersuasive and hold that the Commonwealth's comments regarding the relative credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense were entirely proper.