Opinion ID: 1536009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Guilt Phase Summation

Text: Defendant characterizes the guilt phase summation as a moveable feast of prosecutorial misconduct. The inappropriateness of the summation, defendant claims, is by itself sufficient to warrant reversal of his conviction. He claims the following soliloquy both slanders his character and inflames the jury: What kind of man could do such awful deeds? What kind of man could commit such evil acts? The kind of man who could cavalierly dump a child's body and make his next stop a WAWA. The kind of man who could, after executing her daughter, look Maureen Kanka in the eye, within minutes, and not flinch. The kind of man who had the unmitigated gall to offer to hand out fliers for the child whose life he had just snuffed out. The kind of man who, over the course of two days, could talk about the rape and murder and the brutalizing of a child and never show a shred of emotion. The kind of man who could talk about Megan's death and blame her because his hand hurt. The kind of man like the Defendant. The Defendant killed to protect his own self interest. He killed, he claims to protect himself, because he didn't want Megan to get loose. He didn't want Megan to tell on him. He didn't kill in a rage. He didn't kill in a panic. He didn't kill by accident. This killing was so cold and so calculating that it is chilling in the extreme. Defendant further claims the following statement was an allegation of uncharged misconduct: He had been lusting for this child for weeks or months, as he told Sergeant Stanley on Sunday. He had been watching little girls for weeks and months, and getting those feelings for them. It is an image that is so appalling that it is hard to put into words. He had been lusting after this child. Defendant also objects to the prosecutor's reference to the fact that defendant did not call to the stand individuals that he claimed actually committed the murders. The prosecutor stated, based upon all you saw, and all you heard and all you know about his activities, and all you know about his behavior, is there one bit of testimony to suggest [he was covering up for Jenin or Cifelli]? Finally, defendant objects to the prosecutor's finale: Members of the jury, sexual violation in the park. Is there any image more despicable? Is there any act more depraved than that one? After all that he had done to that child, and he had to violate her one more time. He didn't rip the bags off her head to try to save her. He stuck his finger in her vagina. Can there by any question of his intent? He dumps her, and then he drives off. This was a man who wanted to kill, intended to kill, meant to kill, chose to kill, and did kill purposely or knowingly by his own conduct. ... In those statements, did you once, even once, hear him mention anything about Megan or concern for what she had suffered? Megan would never laugh and never smile again, and he was upset that his hand hurt. Megan lay dead and he blamed her for the wound on his hand. Megan was on a morgue table, and he wanted a band-aid.