Opinion ID: 2714926
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Impugning

Text: A prosecutor can certainly argue that the evidence does not support the defense theory. State v. Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24, 87, 882 P.2d 747 (1994) (citing .. State v. Graham, 59 Wn. App. 418,429, 79 P.2d 314 (1990)). However, a prosecutor must not impugn the role or integrity of defense counsel. Warren, 165 Wn.2d at 2930; State v. Negrete, 72 Wn. App. 62, 67, 863 P.2d 137 (1993). Prosecutorial statements that malign defense counsel can severely damage an accused's opportunity to present his or her case and are therefore impermissible. Bruno v. Rushen, 721 F.2d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). The Court of Appeals found that the prosecutor impugned defense counsel with the following comments: ' [S]he doesn't care if the objection is sustained or not,' 'We're going to have like a sixth grader [argument],' and '[W]e're into silly.' Lindsay & Holmes, 171 Wn. App. at 827 (alterations in original). In addition, the Court of Appeals relied on the following interactions: 8 State v. Lindsay (James Leroy)/State v. Holmes (Jennifer), No. 88437-4 Another time, Holmes's counsel was in the middle of an objection and the prosecutor interrupted her saying, Yeah, we all know that. 87 VRP at 8092. Yet another time, the prosecutor responded to Holmes's counsel's objection by stating, Maybe if counsel and her client could just be quiet for a few minutes they might be able to hear something. 95 VRP at 8887. At one point, the prosecutor became visibly upset and Holmes's counsel said the prosecutor is having a tantrum. 52 VRP at 4554. The prosecutor replied, And counsel walked right into this after freaking six weeks and said directly to Holmes's counsel, Tantrum, because you-. 52 VRP at 4554. Jd. at 827. This exchange (and the many more like it) is self-centered and rude. It is all about the lawyers' personalities, not the parties' cases. It is clearly the fault of both lawyers, and it is so obnoxious and so continuous that it permeates the record. In fact, it seems to this court that it would be incredibly difficult to focus on the issue of guilt or innocence with this grating noise in the background. Such incivility threatens the fairness of the trial, not to mention public respect for the courts. See Jones v. City of Seattle, 179 Wn.2d 322, 371, 314 P.3d 380 (2013) (Gonzalez, J., concurring). These comments quoted immediately above, alone, though, probably do not require reversal. In past ca~es finding that the prosecutor impugned defense counsel, the prosecutor made more egregious statements than the ones above. In Negrete, for example, the prosecutor said that defense counsel was 'being paid to twist the words of the witnesses.' 72 Wn. App. at 66. In State v. Gonzales, the prosecutor 9 State v. Lindsay (James Leroy)/State v. Holmes (Jennifer), No. 88437-4 impermissibly contrasted the roles of prosecutor and defense counsel, stating that while the defense attorney's duty was to his criminal client, the prosecutor's duty was 'to see that justice is served.' 111 Wn. App. 276, 283, 45 P.3d 205 (2002). And in Bruno, the obvious import of the prosecutor's comments was that all defense counsel in criminal cases are retained solely to lie and distort the facts and camouflage the truth. 721 F.2d at 1194. Thus, the unprofessional exchanges above, alone, probably did not fundamentally undermine defense counsel's role or integrity. They certainly undermined the authority of the court and the formality of the proceeding, though. Another statement by the prosecutor, however, did directly impugn defense counsel. The prosecutor stated in closing, in reference to Holmes's counsel's closing argument, This is a crock. What you've been pitched for the last four hours is a crock. 95 VRP at 8877. In State v. Thorgerson, we held that the prosecutor impugned defense counsel's integrity, particularly in referring to his presentation of his case as 'bogus' and involving 'sleight of hand.' 172 Wn.2d 438, 451-52, 258 P.3d 43 (2011) (citing Warren, 165 Wn.2d at 29). We continued, In particular, 'sleight of hand' implies wrongful deception or even dishonesty in the context of a court proceeding. Id. at 452 (defining sleight ofhand) (quoting WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 2141 (2003)). 10 State v. Lindsay (James Leroy)/State v. Holmes (Jennifer), No. 88437-4 The term crock is at least as bad. It also implies deception and dishonesty. 3 In addition, the term a crock is commonly understood to be a shortening of an explicitly vulgar phrase. Describing a defense counsel's argument with that full phrase would certainly impugn defense counsel's integrity. Calling counsel's argument a crock is not much different. Given our discussion of the terms bogus and sleight of hand in Thorgerson, we hold that the prosecutor impugned defense counsel in this case by calling Holmes's counsel's closing arguments a crock.