Opinion ID: 453004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Closing Argument in Context

Text: 296 Considered as a whole, the argument in the penalty phase of Brooks' trial, from beginning to end, exceeded the outermost limits of a constitutionally permissible closing argument. 297 At the outset it should be emphasized again that the argument challenged in this case occurred at the penalty phase of Brook's capital trial. As the Supreme Court has noted, the consensus of their capital cases has been that where discretion is afforded a sentencing body in a matter so grave as the determination of whether a human life should be taken or spared, that discretion must be suitably directed and limited. Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 2741, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983). The purpose of the penalty phase is to determine if death or life is the appropriate punishment in that case. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 601, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). 298 Improper argument by the prosecutor at the penalty phase interjects irrelevant considerations into the fact finding process, diverting the jury's attention from its proper focus, the characteristics of the individual and the offense. See Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 644, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). Thus, such arguments increase the likelihood that a sentence of death will be arbitrary and capricious. Eliminating the risk of sentences imposed due to passion or prejudice has been the main thrust of the Supreme Court's death penalty decisions. Zant, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 2742. Therefore, any claim of prosecutorial misconduct in the penalty phase of a capital trial must be examined with these considerations in mind. 299 Shortly after he began his closing argument, the district attorney gave in no uncertain terms his own views on capital punishment: 300 Let me tell you here at the outset that I am for capital punishment. If you've got to take sides, I take the side of capital punishment. I believe in the death penalty. I think it is necessary. 301 The prosecutor's personal opinions on capital punishment, as well as any other matter, are obviously irrelevant. See United States v. Morris, 568 F.2d 396, 401 (5th Cir.1978). He then went on to support this view, especially the view that capital punishment deters, through non-documented assertions of matters that were not in the record: 302 I can tell you this; the last person in Georgia was electrocuted in 1964, and since that date crime has increased year by year, time after time, every time the statistics come out we have an increase in crime. We didn't have that when we had capital punishment, we didn't have this kind of murder, the kind of crimes you've heard about this week, when we had capital punishment, if they were they were very seldom, we heard about them somewhere else, but not around here. 303 These remarks were without any evidentiary support in the record. Furthermore, they misleadingly suggested to the jury that there is reliable evidence demonstrating the correlation between capital punishment and reduction in violent crime. As the Supreme Court noted in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) this assertion cannot be verified empirically. 428 U.S. at 184-85. Additionally, this statement is not relevant to either the character or the defendant or the circumstances of the crime, the relevant factors in a capital sentencing proceeding. The statements therefore diverted the jury from their proper focus. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). 304 From this starting point the district attorney then proceeded to compare the qualities of the victim and her worth to her family to that of the petitioner. 305 Now, lets think about this, you have looked at William Anthony Brooks all week, he has been here been surrounded by his lawyers and you've seen him. Let's talk a minute about the person who is not here, about Carol Jeannine Galloway. What kind of person was she? We know that she was a pretty young lady, a beautiful young lady. We know that she was about 23 years old, she was not married, that she still lived with her mother and father, and we know that she was a person of high morals. We know that she was a considerate person. She went out picking up the garbage can to save her mother or father from having to do that. We know that she was a thoughtful person, she was going to treat her friend to breakfast before her friend left town. 306 So, when Mr. Araguel, or Mr. Sanders, whoever makes the argument on that side starts talking about William Brooks' life, and about William Brooks, about what a young person he is, his family, think about the Galloway family. Think about Carol Jeannine Galloway, who is not here in the courtroom today and who will never be here again. 307 Now, they are going to tell you, don't take William Brooks' life, locking him up is enough, don't put death on him, don't make his family go through with that. What has the Galloway family gone through. What have they gone through? Next week when it is Thanksgiving, and they are sitting around the table, Carol Jeannine won't be there, and never will be there again. 308 Again, these statements urged the jury to vote for the death penalty not because of any factor relating to Mr. Brooks' character or the facts of the offense but because Ms. Galloway was a thoughtful, considerate person who would be deeply missed by her family. This call for the death penalty due to the prominence of the victim in the community was not only irrelevant, but prejudicial to the defendant because it injected an arbitrary factor in the sentencing processing that could only mislead and divert the jury from its proper focus. 10 The jury was essentially being told to compare the relative worth of the victim and the defendant to society, i.e. the victim was more worthy and she was dead. The less worthy defendant, therefore, should also die. 309 Next, the prosecutor urged the jury that a sentence of death was appropriate in this case because his office had determined that this was one of the few murder cases for which the death penalty was the appropriate punishment. Stepping aside as the prosecuting attorney, he assumed what was in fact, the role of an expert witness: 310 Now, we don't ask for the death penalty--I have been district attorney for seven and one-half years, and we don't take this business of asking for the death penalty lightly. We don't come up here on every murder case that we try and say, give the man the electric chair. In the seven and one-half years that I have been a district attorney, I believe that we have asked for it less than a dozen times, I think it is nearer eight or nine, but I know that it is less than twelve. 311 The prosecutor then described the process of how his office determined that a sentence of death was appropriate in this case. Now what do we consider before we come to you and ask you to impose the death penalty? Well one of the things we consider are the facts of the case that is being tried. He then went on to describe the offense as follows: 312 ... [H]e turns around and shoots her down like you would a dog, a stray dog. And, he didn't kill her, then, he said she was screaming and he shot her, and she fell, and was still trying to scream so he said in his statement, but the sound wouldn't come out and she bled to death, very slowly, drip by drip, drop by drop ... We wouldn't do that, as I said, to a stray animal that you wanted to get rid of, you wouldn't treat it like that. 313 The prosecutor went on to explain that, another thing we consider before we come to you and ask for the death penalty is the proof in the case, he concluded by expressing his opinion that I'm sure you agree with what I said this morning that the evidence against William Brooks is overwhelming ... He then told the jury that another thing that we consider before we ask for the death penalty, ... is rehabilitation, and that he had concluded that there is no chance that William Anthony Brooks will ever be rehabilitated. 314 This series of statements was improper because it informed the jury that the district attorney's office, state officials with much experience in making these decisions, after reviewing all of the facts, had decided that William Brooks was one of the less than a dozen people found deserving of death in the last seven and one-half years. Instead of urging the jury to consider all relevant facts before making its choice, the district attorney essentially told the jury that the choice had already been made by those who are experts in the field. 11 These remarks could only have been intended to reduce, and could only have had the effect of reducing in the jurors minds, the burden imposed by Georgia law on them, i.e., that they alone could choose between the sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty. 315 In this same manner, the district attorney continued to urge the jury that it should not feel responsible if it voted for the death penalty. 316 Now, I am sure that another question that might be going through your mind at this time is, when I get back to that jury room, and we have to vote, and I vote to take somebody's life, can I do it? I know it is rough, it would be hard for me to do. Can I take somebody's life? Well, the truth of the matter is you're not taking his life, you are not pulling the switch in the electric chair; the police who investigated this case and who apprehended William Brooks, they are not taking his life; the recorders court judge who heard the evidence in the preliminary hearing, are you going to say that he is responsible for taking his life? Of course not. How about the grand jury who listened to the evidence and indicted him for murder; are the grand jurors responsible for his life, can you say they are about to take his life? Of course not. How about me and my staff, we put the case together and we prosecuted him, and we are here now asking you to bring back the death penalty, do we feel responsible? I don't--I don't think anybody in my office does. 317 How about the man, if he's electrocuted, who actually pulls the switch, is he responsible for taking his life? Of course not. The person who is responsible for his life is William Brooks himself, and if the switch is pulled and he's put to death, he pulled the switch the morning that he was walking along Saint Mary's Road when he put the gun in the back of Carol Jeannine Galloway and kidnapped her, that's when he took his own life. He's a grown man, and he knew what he was doing. 318 In Georgia, the jury is the final sentencing authority in a capital case. Arguments which trivialize this responsibility are inconsistent with the jury's role in a death case and are therefore improper. 12 319 Next the prosecutor suggested that Mr. Brooks should be sentenced to death for exercising his right to stand trial. 320 Now I'm sure the argument is going to be made, either by Mr. Araguel, or maybe some member of the jury that, Well the death penalty is bad, maybe we can do something else. Well let me say this to you; I told you I believe in it. William Brooks believes in the death penalty, he believes in executing people. He carried Carol Jeannine Galloway down in those woods out of the sight of everybody. 321 Carol Jeannine Galloway did not have a battery of lawyers around her, she didn't have a judge sitting there ruling on the evidence, she didn't get twenty strikes when the jury was selected, she didn't have any courtroom with cameras so that the whole record could see that she got a fair trial. 322 He just stepped back at point-blank range within three feet of her and killed her, shot her. So, he believes in the death penalty, he executed her, a lot more horrible than the electric chair which is a quick ... 323 These statements clearly urged the jury to punish Brooks for exercising his constitutional rights as well as his own belief in the death penalty. There also was the unmistakable implication that the system coddles criminals, at the expense of law abiding citizens, by giving them procedural protections. In the context of the numerous other comments made by the prosecutor that were an intentional effort to procure a decision that was not based on a rational assessment of the evidence, they can only be seen as improper. See, e.g., Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (exercise of fifth amendment right to remain silent cannot be commented upon by prosecutor). 324 The prosecutor then urged the jury to consider the safety of prison guards and their families as well as other prisoners: 325 So, you put him in prison. How about those guards who have to guard him? They have families depending on them, how do you know that he won't kill one of them? 326 And, even worse than that, how about some young prisoner, or some other prisoner who is in prison with him, who is there trying to make his time, trying to be rehabilitated so he can go back to his family, back to society? He could kill him, kill a fellow prisoner. 327 He then went on to suggest that Mr. Brooks might escape and kill one of their loved ones: 328 How about if he escapes? And I'm sure they are going to say, Oh, he couldn't escape. But, it was the early part of this year, or last year, I don't recall now, that a man escaped from a prison in Tennessee that no one had ever escaped from before. So, you always have the possibility that he might escape and might be out on the streets, and who knows who it will be next time, whose daughter will it be next time? It was Mrs. Galloway's daughter this time, Bobby Murray's girl friend? Whose girl friend or daughter will it be next time if he is out? 329 These remarks go far beyond the proper focus of a capital sentencing hearing. They serve only to fuel a jury's speculation about irrelevant matters, i.e. prison security and administration. In that respect, they divert the jury from the real task before them. Furthermore, these comments were not intended to help the jury make a rational assessment of the evidence. Rather, they were intended to influence them to make a decision based on fear; either fear for the life of the guards or prisoners, or fear for their own life or those of their families. 330 The prosecutor then appealed to the jury as taxpayers to impose death to save themselves the cost of housing and feeding another prisoner: 331 This is--I'm going to say this, and maybe you don't agree with me, and I'm sure that I will be accused of being materialistic in saying it, but why should--if he's given life, it costs money to keep him, thousands of dollars a year to keep a prisoner housed, feed and clothed, and medical care, why should the taxpayers, and that's you folks, all of us, why should the taxpayers have to keep somebody like William Brooks the rest of his life, ... why should we? 332 This argument like so many of the previous statements offered by the district attorney was completely irrelevant to the offense and to the offender. However, they provided a reason for the jury to vote for the death penalty, i.e. to ease their tax burdens. Such arguments are indefensible. 13 333 The district attorney next turned to a line of discussion that is most easily classified as The War on Crime argument. 334 Let me say this to you, during my lifetime this country has been in three wars, each war we have taken our young men down to the age of 17, we've trained them, we've put guns in their hands, we've taught them how to kill the enemy and we've sent them overseas and they have killed other human beings who are enemies of our country, and when they did a good job of killing them, we decorated them and gave them citations, praised them for it. Well, I say to you that we are in a war again in this country, except it is not a foreign nation, its against the criminal element in this country, that's who we are at war with, and they are winning the war, is what's so bad, and if you don't believe they are winning, just look about you. You don't dare get out on the streets at night and walk around, you don't dare leave your house unlocked. In fact, most everybody I know has added more locks to their house, and burglar bars, and burglar alarms. And, we've got a man here in town who makes a living with guard dogs, and, if you go to the hospital to see some of your friends, you've got to get by a security guard up there, and you see security guards everywhere. Why are they there? Because of the criminal element in this country. It's winning. 335 And, if we can send a seventeen year old young man overseas to kill an enemy soldier, is it asking too much to ask you to go back and vote for the death penalty in this case against William Brooks, and I submit to you that he is an enemy, and he's a member of the criminal element, and he's our enemy, and he's a enemy of the law abiding citizens and the people who want to live peacefully in this country, and who want to be secure in their persons and their homes. 336 You know, a lot of times you see people on the street, and they are always stopping us and saying, You know, something has got to be done about this crime wave, what can we do, Mr. Whisnant: What can we do, Mr. Smith, we've got to do something about it. Well, you have an opportunity to do something about it right now. The police have investigated this case, we've prosecuted it the best we know how, and you are in the position of Harry Truman, who had on his desk a sign that said, The buck stops here. The buck stops with you today. And you can do something about it. You can bring back the death penalty and you can tell William Brooks, and you can tell every other criminal like him, that if you come to Columbus and Muscogee County, and you commit a crime, and it's one of those crimes that is punishable by death, ... you are going to get the electric chair, that's what you can do. And I believe that that will stop some of the crime.... And, I submit to you that William Brooks is a cancer on the body of society, and if we're going to save society and save civilization, then we've got to remove them from society. 337 These remarks were clearly intended by the district attorney to place Mr. Brooks within a faceless undifferentiated mass of criminals, a cancer on the body of society. Therefore, they were only intended to eliminate the possibility that the jury would base its decision upon the character of the individual defendant, Brooks, and the nature of his crime. The prosecutor urged the death penalty in order to send a message to the criminal element. It was further indicated to the jury that the only way they could save themselves in the ever escalating war on crime was to return a verdict of death in this case. 14 338 Finally, just before resting, the prosecutor apparently appealed to the all white jury on racial grounds. Recounting a portion of Mr. Brooks' statement to the police, the district attorney remarked: 339 ... he was just walking along with a pistol in his pocket and decided, well, I'll make a hustle, to use their language, his language. 340 Despite the majority's contention, this remark can only be seen as a racial reference. Such remarks are clearly improper, see United States ex rel. Haynes v. McKendrick, 481 F.2d 152 (2d Cir.1973), and were an attempt to subtly highlight the race of the defendant as a factor for the jury's decision. Such an argument has no place in any phase of a capital trial. See Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983) (race of defendant is improper as an aggravating circumstance).