Opinion ID: 2829984
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Questioning and Closing Argument

Text: Iuli and Palega were both questioned about the circumstances of their plea bargains on direct and cross-examination. In her closing argument, the prosecutor addressed the deals she made with them in exchange for their testimony, saying: ―[T]here are some major differences between the men in that van. ―And the differences are this: the two men in the front seat of that van [i.e., Iuli and Palega] wanted to let [Pamintuan] go. They wanted to let him live. They didn‘t believe [defendant] should shoot him. They even told [him] not to shoot him. . . . ―If somebody gives up their stuff, you let them go. But [defendant] broke their rule, too. Instead of letting [Pamintuan] go, like they told him to, like they thought they should, he blew [the victim‘s] chest apart. ―There is a moral difference, not a legal difference, but a moral difference between the two in the front seat and the two in the backseat. And that is why there were different offers made. And that is the only reason why.‖ (Italics added.) Further: ―So the offers that were made, which you now have heard so much about, and you heard the actual conditions of the offer read to the witnesses while they were on the stand, is that those two men in the front seat who wanted to let [the victim] go, let him live, got 16 years, eight months. ―And clearly, after seeing Tautai testify, I think you can see why there is such a difference between the two in the front seat and the two in the backseat. I 34 am sure you can see that that discretion was exercised with a proper amount of integrity. Because once you met Tautai, and you saw his lack of moral fiber, I am sure that you could see that there was a big difference between the two in the backseat and the two in the front seat. ―What you were told is that the reason those offers were lowered from a life top to a determinate term was because after [defendant] pulled [his] time [waiver] on March 3d, I couldn‘t prove my case. That is what you were told. I want you to think about the evidence I have in this case and that you now know is true.‖ (Italics added.) The prosecutor then listed all the evidence of guilt, aside from Iuli‘s and Palega‘s testimony. She then continued: ―You know how compelling and how strong the evidence is in this case. So now you know the truth about why those offers were made to Tony and Jay.‖ Defendant did not object to this argument.