Opinion ID: 1915038
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper Questioning and Comment by Prosecuting Attorney.

Text: Defendant complains about the conduct of the assistant county attorney prosecuting the case in several particulars. Among these were the following. Dr. Jan Leestma testified for defendant that Ben's head trauma had occurred a considerable period of time prior to the 911 call. In cross-examining Dr. Leestma, the assistant county attorney asked the following questions: Q. When we talk about the times that you did speak and didn't listen, but spoke, that one of those occasions was when you went to the public defender's conference earlier this year; isn't that true? A. I was invited to speak at the annual meeting in Sioux FallsSioux City. Sorry. And I gave a lecture there. Q. That was in front of a bunch of defense lawyers, wasn't it? A. That's the organization, defense attorneys. I don't know who else was in the audience. Q. That was the last time that you gave a presentation, was before a bunch of defense lawyers in the State of Iowa; isn't that true? A. I wouldn't call them a bunchit's an organization. And that's a pejorative comment. I gave a lecture there I was invited. I did it. I have no apologies to make. The cross-examination continued to demean Dr. Leestma as a defendant's expert witness suggesting that he had only formed his conclusions concerning Ben's trauma after giving a presentation in front of all the defense lawyers here in the State of Iowa. The witness was asked: Q. You are routinely hired by the defense in cases where children are allegedly victims of child abuse and you testify on behalf of the perpetrator; isn't that true? In a later question, the assistant county attorney implied that Dr. Leestma had been hired to testify forty-six times for people who were charged with killing children. We have recognized that [u]nfairly questioning [a witness] simply to make the defendant look bad in front of the jury regardless of the answer given is not consistent with the prosecutor's primary obligation to seek justice, not simply a conviction. State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 873 (Iowa 2003). The American Bar Association Criminal Justice Standards provide: The interrogation of all witnesses should be conducted fairly, objectively, and with due regard for the dignity and legitimate privacy of the witness, and without seeking to intimidate or humiliate the witness unnecessarily. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function 3-5.7( a ) (3d ed.1993). It is apparent that in the present case the prosecutor injected the issue of defendant's expert witness associating with defense lawyers and representing and testifying for perpetrators charged with killing children as an improper effort to demean the witness. We condemn that act. In his cross-examination of defendant, the assistant county attorney asked: Q. You didn't treat him as your own child? A. I tried to help Ben, yes. Q. You never sent Ben a sympathy card? A. I sent him something, yes. Q. Did you ever send his parents a sympathy card to their home? A. No. Q. You never went back to the hospital after Thursday the 16th to visit them or Ben? A. No. Q. You knew he was alive on the 16th, didn't you? A. That's Thursday, the 16th? Q. Yes. You knew he was alive didn't you? A. I went to the hospital. Q. On the 17th you knew he was alive didn't you? A. Yes. Q. You didn't visit him did you? A. No. Q. On the 18th you never went over and visited his parents, did you? A. No. Q. You never attended his funeral did you? A. No. Q. You have never been to that little boy's gravesite, have you? A. No. Q. The truth is that you knocked the life out of Ben and that's why you were afraid you were going to be arrested; isn't that true? A. No, that's not true. Q. The truth is you robbed Jeff and Laura of their only son, didn't you? A. No I did not. Q. You robbed that little boy of his life because he didn't fit within your schedule; isn't that true? A. No, it's not. The foregoing questioning was clearly seeking to play upon the passions of the jury. Such questions violate a prosecutor's duty to keep the record free of undue denunciations or inflammatory utterances. Graves, 668 N.W.2d at 874. As a final claim of prosecutorial misconduct, defendant asserts that during closing arguments the assistant county attorney held a baby book in front of the jury and stated that Ben's baby book will never be written. He then described several child activities that he asserted Ben would never get to perform, and for each such activity, he tore a page out of the book and dropped it on the floor until there were ten pages lying in front of the jury box. Unfortunately, for reasons that are not explained, no record was made of the final argument, so we may not confirm that these acts occurred. Notably, however, the State has not attempted to deny that this conduct took place. If it occurred, this conduct was an improper attempt to appeal to the passion and prejudice of the jury and should be condemned. See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function 3-5.8( c ) (prosecutor should not make arguments calculated to appeal to the prejudices of the jury). The type of prosecutorial misconduct that we have identified should be avoided on retrial of defendant.