Opinion ID: 676357
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remarks to Inflame the Jury

Text: 12 Holiday claims that the prosecutor improperly inflamed the jury by remarking that It[']s a miracle that some of the children who were there weren't shot ... this robbery turned into nearly a slaughter. The district court concluded that in light of the overwhelming evidence, these comments were insufficient to engender substantial prejudice. Further, the court noted that Holiday was acquitted of several charges, undercutting Holiday's claim of prejudice stemming from this comment. See United States v. Van Wyhe, 965 F.2d 528, 533 (7th Cir.1992) (strong evidence of guilt eases any lingering doubt that a remark unfairly prejudiced the jury); United States v. Gonzalez, 933 F.2d 417, 431-32 (7th Cir.1991) (finding that trial court's limiting instruction on opening statements and closing arguments sufficiently precluded a finding of an unfair trial and focused on the more than sufficient proof of defendant's guilt); United States v. Pirovolos, 844 F.2d 415, 427 (7th Cir.1988) (strong evidence of guilt eliminates any lingering doubts about remarks made in closing argument), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 857 (1988); see also United States v. Rose, 12 F.3d 1414 (7th Cir.1994) (concluding that juries heed instructions given that opening statements and closing arguments are not evidence); People v. Henderson, 568 N.E.2d 1234, 1265 (Ill.1990) (prosecutor's statements were improper and attempts to inflame the jury, but did not cause substantial injustice to defendant or deprive him of a fair trial because evidence of guilt was substantial), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct 233 (1991). 13 Here, there was more than sufficient evidence of Holiday's guilt: he was identified by several witnesses as the gunman who shot the victim and he earlier visited the dice game wearing the same clothes. The prosecution's comments, while questionable, do not substantially prejudice the defendant.