Opinion ID: 2974320
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-Examination of Defendant

Text: Lastly, Defendant argues that the prosecution committed misconduct during his crossexamination by questioning Defendant about his bizarre political and religious beliefs, his receipt of public assistance, his failure to support his family, his homosexuality, his activities as a male prostitute, and treatment of his wife. Again, we find this argument to be without merit where the record reveals that the majority of these issues were in fact raised by Defendant’s trial counsel during direct examination. Trial counsel’s direct examination of Defendant focused on Defendant’s political and religious beliefs, associations with Nazis, hatred of blacks and Jews, and how those hatreds drove him to the killings. Defendant also testified on direct about his homosexual activity, cross-dressing, and consideration of a sex change operation. Defendant further testified that he could not recall the reasons for his divorce, but that he continued to support his wife and daughter afterward. As these matters were addressed on direct, they were the proper subject of crossexamination. We therefore conclude that the district court properly found that there was no prosecutorial misconduct that denied Defendant due process or injected any fundamental unfairness into Defendant’s trial.