Opinion ID: 304597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: prosecutor's cross-examination of alibi witness and

Text: REMARKS TO JURY 11 This trial presented the jury with a classic conflict, two irreconcilable lines of testimony. Appellant claims that the prosecution overstepped permissible bounds in attempting to discredit his alibi defense. 12
13
14 Q. By the way, sir, you didn't give a statement to the police did you? 15 A. No, sir, I didn't. 16 Q. You didn't give a typewritten statement the next day like some of the other witnesses, did you? 17 A. No, sir, because I don't know nothing about it. 18 The trial judge interrupted, warning, 19 There is no indication Mr. [Prosecutor] this man was interviewed by the police. I think that question is not appropriate unless there is some indication that police interviewed him. 20 The prosecutor then asked whether Ford had contacted the police; he had not. In his argument to the jury, the prosecutor, seeking to portray Ford's alibi testimony as a fabrication, put it: 21 A man who never gave a statement, his name never comes up in the investigation, all of a sudden he shows up and testifies that the Defendant was with him. 22