Opinion ID: 743074
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Standard of Review

Text: 98 Upon evaluating the trial court's error under the Brecht/Kotteakos standard, we are certain that it was harmful. As noted in Part II.B., supra, credibility was the primary issue in Agard's trial, and was what the jury must have assessed most carefully. As to this particular issue, Agard's attorney reiterated on oral argument before the district court: 99 ... the remarks that I am complaining about that the prosecutor made on summation relates (sic) again to the main issue in the case, which is credibility. We have the defendant testifying, which is not typical. And [the prosecutor] makes a big point out of saying to the jury: this is a big advantage this guy got; he got to sit here and listen to all of our witnesses and the luxury of then trying to figure out the best way to get around the damaging testimony they had. So it did implicate his constitutional rights. 100 But, again, on the question of prejudice, you know, anything that would cast any unfair suspicion on his credibility in this kind of case has to be considered harmful.... It is definitely related to the main theme of this case, which is: who should you believe? 101 District Court Transcript at 13-14. The prosecutor's improper summation comments directly and negatively affected Agard's credibility, and could single-handedly have been the reason for the jury's decision to believe, contrary to the available medical evidence, Winder's testimony that she was anally sodomized rather than Agard's denial that anal intercourse had taken place that weekend. We therefore find that the error meets the Brecht/ Kotteakos standard of harmfulness in that it had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict.