Opinion ID: 1111189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: the trial court erred in sustaining the prosecutor's objections to appellant's closing argument at the guilt phase of the trial, thus depriving appellant of his rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution and sections 14 and 26 of the mississippi constitution.

Text: Pinkney contends that reversible error occurred during the following colloquy: Officer Turcotte, Officer Davis. You heard Officer Turcotte testify. First time he sees Officer Turcotte, Officer Turcotte says, I read him his rights. First thing I did was read him his rights. I don't believe that either. I don't believe that's the first thing a police investigator does. MR. PETERS: Please the Court, we would  I let him get by with it once, but it's against the Court rules and rules of evidence for an attorney to comment on what he believes and doesn't believe. THE COURT: Objection will be sustained. It will be up to the jury to determine the believability of the witness. MR. YOUNG: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, you can believe as to that. I'm not allowed to comment on it. Pinkney does not argue that his attorney's closing argument was proper. Instead, he argues that since the trial judge had permitted the prosecutor to make similarly improper arguments defense counsel should likewise have been permitted to commit err. To disallow an improper argument, Pinkney contends, violates his rights to due process, fundamental fairness, and of course, equal protection. There is no particular authority offered in support of this assignment, which is without merit. It should be noted that the trial court sustained an objection to the prosecutor's puffing of Dr. Galvez' credentials. Also, the prosecutor's comment regarding the relative credibility of Pinkney was not objected to and was therefore never ruled on by the trial judge. None of the prosecutor's comments are analogous to the ruling complained of here. Pinkney's argument is bottomed on a theory that two improper arguments make for a fair trial. That is not the law.