Opinion ID: 2321578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inflammatory Rhetoric During Opening Statement and Closing Argument

Text: Appellants also complain that four comments the prosecutor made were inflammatory. In his opening statement the prosecutor described Helm as a bloody corpse with his guts spilling out, who died a premature and tragic death; and said that one of the kicks Robles-Benevides inflicted on Helm was so hard that Barry Hallner could not believe anyone could have survived that kick. At the end of trial, during rebuttal argument, the prosecutor characterized the government witnesses' testimony as screaming that appellants were guilty, and accused appellants of intimidating witnesses. [47] The prosecutor's description of Helm's injuries were graphic, but were amply supported by the evidence. Hallner, who was a medical assistant, testified about the force of the kick he saw inflicted on Helm's chest: [I]f you could kick something to crush it, that's what it was like; and [Helm was] kicked so hard in the chest you could just feel it. Hallner also described the extensive stab wounds on Helm's body: I pulled up his shirt and that's when I noticed he had quite a number of stab wounds and an eviscerated abdomen[,] his intestines were hanging out of his stomach. In urging the jury to return a guilty verdict, we have said, the prosecutor maywithin boundsdescribe the gritty reality of the crime, including its human toll. Chatmon v. United States, 801 A.2d 92, 100 (D.C.2002). Here, the prosecutor's one-time reference to the grievous injuries inflicted on Helm did not exceed these bounds in the context of a trial in which the jury heard of repeated unprovoked brutal assaults by a mob against two different individuals. Cf. id. at 101 (commenting on impropriety of prosecutor's thrusting into the face of each of the jurors of blown-up gory pictures of the decedent lying in a huge pool of blood on the floor while asking jurors to return a verdict they could live with). The prosecutor's comment regarding witness intimidation also was supported by García's testimony that Salamanca threatened her if she testified and a threatening letter sent by Robles-Benevides to Benítez. [48] The prosecutor is not prohibited from expressing reasonable indignation, and his description of the testimony as screaming for conviction was a forceful, if unusual, means to communicate to the jury that the government's evidence was strong, see Irick, 565 A.2d at 36-37 (The prosecutor may ... prosecute `with earnestness and vigor.' (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935))), and did not improperly vouch for the credibility of the government's witnesses. Cf. Coleman, 948 A.2d at 549 (where defendant took the stand and testified that he was innocent, it was improper for the prosecutor to argue in rebuttal that it would make no sense if the police and prosecutor spen[t] four years of their lives investigating the wrong person). For the foregoing reasons, the court did not plainly err by not admonishing the prosecutor sua sponte regarding these comments or declaring a mistrial.