Opinion ID: 2155692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Rebuttal Argument in Context

Text: Bates' defense theory at trial was that he was an innocent bystander who fled when the police suddenly drove up and jumped out of an unmarked car because he feared that they were going to rob him. [8] Bates' trial counsel proposed that when the police stopped and searched Bates and discovered that all he had on him were two marijuana cigarettes, they manufactured the other charges against him. Beginning with a confrontational opening statement, Bates' counsel charged that the police had falsely accused Bates, were lying, and would commit perjury under oath, and that the prosecutor would be struggling to defend the police fabrications. [9] When Officer Shumac was cross-examined, he did not agree that Bates could have mistaken him and his fellow officers for robbers. Officer Shumac explained that he had worked in the neighborhood for over seven years, and that people frequently recognized him as a police officer even when he was in plain clothes. In the questioning that followed, Bates' trial counsel sought to attribute Officer Shumac's testimony on this score to racial bias: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. Because you're familiar with Barry  you work 7-D. You work Barry Farms. It's a high crime area, correct? Right? [OFFICER SHUMAC]: That's correct. Q: Okay. And people get robbed all the time, correct? A: On occasions, they do. Q: Okay. And they get robbed by white people and they get robbed by black people, right?    A: . . . To the best of my knowledge, I've never heard of a white individual going into Barry Farms robbing somebody. Q: Okay. So it's only the black people over there committing the crimes? [PROSECUTOR]: Objection. THE COURT: Oh, Mr. [defense counsel]. Sustained. In closing argument, Bates' counsel insisted over and over that the police officers were telling lies. Counsel added that [t]he Government wants to call that just normal testimony . . . [b]ut when the Government puts on witnesses who tells [sic] you lies, ladies and gentlemen, that's corruption. Building on his exchange with Officer Shumac, Bates' counsel also argued that the mindset of the prosecution in this case was based on racist assumptions: [W]hat the Government wants you to believe, and particularly what Officer Shumac wants you to believe, is that somehow everybody in the neighborhood. . . knows who they are, that they're the police. It's quite an assumption, ladies and gentlemen. Everybody in Barry Farms is some how so intimately involved with criminal activity, that they all know who the police are. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't accept that, you don't accept that, and that's not what common sense or the facts of this case tell you, that every-body in Barry Farms knows who the police are. That's sort of part of a bunch of baloney that they're feeding you in this case.    They want you to believe that  and Officer Shumac was a prime example. He says, well, I said, you know, a couple of white guys jumping out of a car and never saying who they are, running after two guys at gun point. They would think you're a robber, right. Oh, no, white people have never committed a robbery in Barry Farms. This is this man's testimony. [10]    Now, ladies and gentlemen, that's another  that gives you the mindset of the officers in this case. It gives you the mindset of Officer Shumac. And it gives you the mindset of the prosecution in this case. It's based on assumptions. It['s] based on assumptions that if you see two White guys jumping out of a car, you're going to know that they're police, even though they don't tell you, they're police. Counsel concluded his argument by insisting that the only crime Bates committed was to have two joints of marijuana . . . in his pocket as he ran from two guys that looked like thugs that were chasing after him with a gun, who he thought were trying to rob him. Bates, he said, lives in a bad neighborhood, and I'm sorry for that, maybe the Government says, he shouldn't live over there. In rebuttal, counsel for the government was moved to respond to defense counsel's rhetoric as follows: Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you, you were not presented with a defense or a defense theory in this case, you were presented with a hoax. Hoax number one. [Defense counsel] stood up here and had the gall to tell us about his daughter . . . and him being a good father and her pulling sticks of butter out of the refrigerator. [11] Well, you know what, ladies and gentlemen, my aunt and my entire family who lives in Southeast on Elmira Street, my aunt who raised me, she believes in personal responsibility, ladies and gentlemen. You know what she used to say to me when I was growing up and I spilled a glass of milk, she'd say, don't come to me. You made your mess and you clean it up. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Bates and Mr. Clayborne made their mess and in that trunk right there. Well, why did [defense counsel] say this to you, ladies and gentlemen? Why did he say these things? He stood up here, him, you look at him and you look at me, you tell me, who the heck is he to make a statement like that. []Maybe the Government  maybe the Government thinks that people shouldn't live over there in places like that.[] Look at him and look at me, and who in the heck is he to say something like that in this courtroom. But why does he do it, ladies and gentlemen? Desperation, clear and simple.    And I submit to you that that statement, that he made on  I'm not evidence, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not a witness in this case, I don't testify, but that statement he made about me, that's desperation, and it's an attempt to distract you from what's sitting at this table, ladies and gentlemen, overwhelming evidence, and I'm just talking about Mr. Bates now. I'm going to get to Mr. Clayborne in a second. Overwhelming evidence of his client's guilt. Hoax number one, [defense counsel]'s own racism. (Emphasis added.) At this juncture Bates' counsel moved for a mistrial. The trial court agreed that the prosecutor's rebuttal comments were improper and were not justified by the arguments of defense counsel. [12] The court declined to grant a mistrial, however. Instead the court instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor's last remark: Ladies and gentlemen, the last remark is stricken from the record. In the Court's view it has no place, and that there should be no further ad hominem attacks or references to counsel by either side . . . . When I say stricken, it means it's not in the record. It should not be a part of your consideration in any way. Neither [the prosecutor] nor [defense counsel] are on trial here. That's not the issue. The prosecutor's rebuttal continued without further objection. After the trial court delivered its final jury instructions, Bates' counsel renewed his motion for a mistrial. Counsel argued that jurors with doubts about the strength of the government's case would be hesitant to side with someone whom the prosecutor had identified as a racist. However, the trial court continued to disagree that a mistrial was required. The court reasoned that the improper remarks were quite removed from the issues of guilt or innocence, that the court had acted swiftly to admonish the jury to disregard the remarks, and that the case itself did not involve a race crime or have strong racial overtones. For these reasons, the court expressed confidence that the jury would ignore the prosecutor's ad hominem attack on defense counsel and decide the case on the evidence.