Opinion ID: 1951476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Gravity and Corrective Instructions

Text: We turn first to the factors of gravity and corrective instructions. The prosecutor's improper comments during the rebuttal argument could reasonably be viewed as very serious, Lee, supra, 668 A.2d at 831, and a violation of repeated rulings of this court. However, the gravity of the prosecutor's improper comments is tempered by defense counsel's closing argument. Although defense counsel's persistent comments on the credibility of M.B. generally were grounded in evidence that M.B. had a motive to lie because Diaz had reprimanded her and pushed her out of his room, counsel suggested that at least one government witness changed her account of the alleged sexual encounter after talking with the prosecutor. Moreover, the comment regarding Diaz's consultation with counsel, undoubtedly one of the most serious of the improper remarks, was sandwiched in the prosecutor's reference to Thomas J.'s testimony, and the overall effort to overcome one of defense counsel's themes in her closing argumentthat M.B.'s account of the event doesn't make sense. We agree with the trial court that the reference to consultation with counsel did not mislead the jury. [13] During the discussion with the trial court of the prosecutor's rebuttal, defense counsel emphasized the perceived attack on the integrity of defense counsel, rather than Diaz's constitutional right of consultation with counsel. In addition, immediately after the trial court concluded its instructions to the jury, defense counsel did not request any corrective instruction related to the prosecutor's improper remarks. Nonetheless, the trial court did instruct the jury regarding the role of the interpreter, [14] and informed the jury that arguments of counsel were not evidence. These instructions ameliorated any harm which might have resulted from the prosecutor's improper comments.