Opinion ID: 2981381
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Petitioner’s Failure to Testify

Text: Petitioner argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument by referring to his decision not to testify at trial. Petitioner claims that such comments brought unnecessary attention to the fact that his defense rested solely on the basis of B.V.’s testimony at trial, and therefore rendered his trial unfair and violated his due process rights. During closing argument, the prosecutor made the following statements regarding Petitioner’s decision not to testify. Did any of the witnesses tell you why [B.V.] would make up a story that Tom Rector raped her. You didn’t hear that story. You won’t hear that story because there is no story of why [B.V.] would make up such a statement. There has not been on shred of testimony of why she would make this up. You never heard them tell you that anything that [B.V.] went through prior to testifying here, anything she reviewed prior to testifying here, was inconsistent with anything that she had said before. What you never heard was anything out of anyone during this trial that would say why [B.V.] would lie. 6 No. 09-3957 The Ohio Court of Appeals found that “the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments did not vouch for the witness’s credibility. Rather, these remarks were an attempt to illustrate why the witness has no motive to lie.” Rector, 2002 WL 32098116, at . The state appellate court’s decision regarding Petitioner’s claim was not an unreasonable application of federal law given the level of deference we are required to afford state court proceedings pursuant to AEDPA. Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785 (2011). Although the prosecutor’s remarks may be construed as indirectly or impliedly referring to Petitioner’s decision not to testify, this is not the only possible interpretation, and the state appellate court’s construction was not unreasonable. The crux of the prosecution’s closing argument focused on Petitioner’s guilt and how the evidence presented at trial established that Petitioner committed the alleged sexual acts. In Darden, the Supreme Court found that improper and prejudicial prosecutorial statements may be cured when the evidence strongly supports a finding of guilt. Darden, 477 U.S. at 182. In this case, the prosecutor summarized Petitioner’s alleged conduct in order to show the jury that the prosecution had met its burden of establishing Petitioner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor’s comments did not attempt to draw attention to the fact that Petitioner did not testify at trial. Rather, the remarks supported the prosecution’s theory that B.V. was a credible witness and that substantial evidence supported her allegations of sexual abuse. In addition, the trial court provided a curative instruction to the jury to mitigate any prejudice caused by the alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The judge instructed the jury that they could only review the evidence presented at trial, and not the “indictment, opening statement, or closing 7 No. 09-3957 argument” of the parties. The court also instructed the jury not to consider the fact that Petitioner did not testify. The judge stated that “it [was] not necessary that the defendant take the witness stand in his own defense” because “[h]e has a constitutional right not to testify.” The judge also stated that “the fact that the defendant did not testify must not be considered for any purposes.” The state appellate court’s interpretation of the prosecutor’s comments and its conclusion that they did not rise to the level of misconduct were not unreasonable. Accordingly, its ruling on this issue did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, and habeas relief is not warranted.