Opinion ID: 200002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: defense counsel's argument

Text: 74 Finally, Wilson objects to the following comments made by Chief Grady's counsel (Kesten), during closing argument: 30 75 Mr. Wilson has been reviewing that tape over and over again beginning with Attorney Strand over there, and they made up a story.... And their claim is — and you heard that after viewing this video and meeting with Attorney Strand, a letter was written by Attorney Strand [in] which they came up with the phantom prey. They came up with lots of stories. None of it happened. 31 76 While the insinuation that Wilson had concocted stories with the connivance of his lawyer should not have been made, the point that Wilson had no independent recollection of how he had come to suffer a laceration to his chin was invited by his own testimony. 77 Q. Isn't it a fact, sir, that you came to the conclusion that Officer Sweet had kicked your head only when Mr. Strand told you that that had happened? 78
79 Q. Is that a no, sir, or yes? 80 A. Yes. When we viewed the videotape. 81 ... 82 Q. Page 158, Line 3, at that same deposition, sir, were you asked the following question and did you give the following response: 83 QUESTION: Was it the first time you watched the videotape with your lawyer that you understood in your mind that it was a Hopedale officer that had cut your chin? 84 ANSWER: When Bob point[ed] it out, yes. 85 A. Yes. 86 Q. And Bob is Mr. Strand, Correct? 87 A. Yes, sir. I already said that, yes. 88 Wilson's credibility was the pivotal issue at trial, and his memory of events was a fair subject for comment. There was no basis, however, for the insinuation that attorney Strand had incited Wilson to perjury. But in context the comment was fleeting and, given the trial theatrics in which counsel for both sides engaged, would likely have been recognized by the jury as yet another display of barristerial excess. Moreover, we are confident, that if there was any prejudice, it was cured by the court's admonition to the jury, both in its preliminary and concluding instructions, that the lawyers' statements and arguments were not to be considered as evidence. See Brandt v. Wand Partners, 242 F.3d 6, 23 (1st Cir.2001). 89 Because we find no reversible error, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. No costs are awarded.