Opinion ID: 339203
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's Prejudicial Comments

Text: 46 Defendant contends that two statements made by the Government during closing argument were prejudicial and require reversal and a new trial. Since no objection was raised to these comments at trial, defendant must rely on a plain error theory. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). United States v. Esposito, 523 F.2d 242, 251 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 96 S.Ct. 1517, 47 L.Ed.2d 768; United States v. Fearns, 501 F.2d 486 (7th Cir. 1974). Reversal for plain error requires error both obvious and substantial, or serious and manifest errors; and such reversal should be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances. United States v. Greene, 497 F.2d 1068, 1077 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied 420 U.S. 909, 95 S.Ct. 829, 42 L.Ed.2d 839. 47 Specifically, defendant complains that the Government improperly stated to the jury during closing a fact not in evidence that Olivia Batteast, the victim, lost her sight in one eye. 4 In addition, defendant also suggests that the Government's statement to the jury that defendant knew that the purpose of his psychiatric examination was (w)hether he is going to walk out of this courtroom today . . .  was improper argument. 5 48 We are fully aware of our responsibility to assure that a defendant obtains a fair trial by an impartial jury. However, as Judge Stevens, now Justice Stevens, recognized in his dissent in United States v. Thomas, 463 F.2d 1061 (7th Cir. 1972), (a)lmost every jury trial requires some compromise with standards of absolute perfection; such deviations must be tolerated if the jury system is to function effectively. 463 F.2d at 1066. The prosecutor's closing argument must be viewed as a whole to determine if it was unduly prejudicial. United States v. Greene, 497 F.2d 1068, 1085 (7th Cir. 1974). For the following reasons this court finds that the prosecutor's comments were not so prejudicial as to require a new trial. 49 Government Remarks to the Jury Not in Evidence 50 It is uncontested that the record is devoid of evidence bearing upon whether or not Olivia Batteast lost sight in one eye. In response to a question from this court, defendant's counsel on appeal stated that the jurors could not determine whether or not Ms. Batteast, who testified at trial, was blind in one eye from her physical appearance. Counsel for defendant stated that Ms. Batteast's eyes moved together and that there was only slight scarring above the eye. 51 During his closing argument, an advocate is permitted to make any comments which are supported by the evidence of record in the case. An advocate is likewise within the bounds of propriety in replying to an argument raised by his opposing advocate. United States v. Guajardo-Melendez, 401 F.2d 35, 39-40 (7th Cir. 1968). Neither a basis in evidence nor an appropriate reply justified the Government's statement to the jury in the present case. The Government violated the fundamental rule, known to every lawyer, that argument is limited to the facts in evidence. United States v. Fearns, 501 F.2d 486, 489 (7th Cir. 1974). 52 The Government's improper statement, however, is not so prejudicial as to require a new trial. 53 Defendant relies on United States v. Fearns, supra, and United States v. Davis, 532 F.2d 22 (7th Cir. 1976). Both cases, however, are distinguishable from the case at bar. 54 In Fearns, the prosecutor improperly buttressed the credibility of witness Diann Morris, a participant in the crime, who pleaded guilty and testified on behalf of the Government. Twice during his closing argument the prosecutor referred to a fact not in evidence that witness Morris made a prior consistent statement before she was indicted. Defendants failed to object the first time the prosecutor went outside the record and their objection was sustained the second time the improper statement was made. 55 In United States v. Davis, 532 F.2d 22 (7th Cir. 1976), the prosecutor in his closing argument referred to a prior consistent statement not in evidence to buttress the credibility of Postal Inspector Wilson, a key Government witness. Wilson's testimony went to the question of defendant's intent to commit the crime. At the time of the statement to the jury, defense counsel objected. The court instructed the prosecutor to stick to the evidence and the prosecutor incorrectly responded, That is the evidence, your Honor. 56 The present case is distinguishable from both Fearns and Davis. The improper statement to the jury in the present case did not contain information central to the Government's case. The statement neither contained information which buttressed the credibility of a key Government witness nor further inculpated defendant in the crime. On the contrary, the improper statement contained information which was collateral to the sole issue in the case the question of defendant's sanity at the time of the offense. 57 In addition, the case at bar is distinguishable since the statement in question was made once in passing and not emphasized and, therefore, the prejudice was not exaggerated. 58 This court is not condoning the improper and prejudicial statement by the Government. Under the facts of the particular case, however, we do not believe that the improper comment infected the whole decision-making process of the jury so as to require a new trial. 59 Government's Argument on Defendant's Insanity Defense 60 Conflicting psychiatric testimony was submitted on the sole issue before the jury whether defendant was sane at the time of the offense. Defendant asserts that the Government's argument was improper in that it limited the jury's ability to consider the question of defendant's sanity. 61 The common element in cases reversed because of improper Government argument relating to the defense of insanity is a prosecutor's invitation to the jury to convict even though it might believe the defendant to be insane in order to keep the defendant off the streets and away from society. Evalt v. United States, 359 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1966); United States v. Birrell, 421 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1970); Bruce v. Estelle, 483 F.2d 1031 (5th Cir. 1973). That element is not present in the case at bar. 62 On cross-examination Dr. Slutsky stated that defendant knew the purpose of his examination. (Tr. 181.) Based on this testimony, the Government twice argued that defendant understood that the psychiatric examination by Dr. Slutsky offered a potential way out through an insanity defense. 6 The focus of the Government's argument was a possible motivation for defendant to lie during his psychiatric examination. The single reference to defendant walking out of the courtroom did not have an effect which would convince the jury to convict to keep defendant off the streets but instead cast doubt on Dr. Slutsky's findings of insanity. The Government was not calling upon the jury to convict regardless of whether defendant was sane or insane. 63 In addition, the Government made reference only once during its closing argument to defendant walking out of the courtroom. The remark was made in passing and was not emphasized. 64 In response to a question from the jury as to whether defendant would receive help if found guilty or not guilty (Tr. 313), the trial court submitted the following written instruction to the jury: 65 In determining the guilt or the innocence of the defendant, you should not give any consideration to the matter of psychiatric treatment for the defendant or to the matter of punishment. (Tr. 314) 66 Thus, the jury was clearly instructed to disregard the question of punishment or possible treatment depending on the verdict. In effect, the jury was instructed to focus on the central issue in the case. 67 We wish to emphasize that the Government walks a fine line when it makes reference to a defendant walking out of court where an insanity defense is asserted. The threat always is present that the jury's consideration of the evidence will be affected by their fear that a finding of insanity will result in a defendant being set free. Under the particular facts of the present case, however, the danger of this having occurred seems minimal. Accordingly, we do not believe that a new trial is required.