Opinion ID: 702336
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comments About Defense Counsel

Text: 52 Rodriguez's next contention is that the prosecutor called his attorney a liar and stated that the defense counsel's job was to get his client off, thereby denying him a fair trial. During defense counsel's closing argument, he implied that one of the investigating police officers, Officer McKenna, acted improperly when investigating the Palmer murders because he failed to record a written memorandum of the fact that Santana was shown pictures of Rodriguez, but did not identify him. Rodriguez's attorney claimed that he only found out about Santana's failure to name the defendant in the early stages of the investigation because he retained a private investigator to speak with her. When Assistant State's Attorney Telander gave his rebuttal argument, he responded to the defense's accusation that the police engaged in misconduct when they did not memorialize Santana's failure to identify Rodriguez as the murderer during the initial stage of the investigation. Telander informed the jury that the prosecution turned over every police report, every photo, everything we have to the defense and stated that the defense counsel was lying to you when he said that he did not know that Santana did not identify Rodriguez right away, until after his private investigator, Beseth, spoke with her. 53 Although we do not reverse [Rodriguez's] conviction, neither do we approve of the prosecutor's conduct in closing argument. We strongly suggest that prosecuting attorneys thoroughly prepare their closing arguments before delivery and thus avoid such reckless and unsupportable comments and/or supposed legitimate inferences. The prosecutor's office is an entity [of the government] and as such it is the spokes[person] for the Government.... It is well understood in the realm of ethical and proper conduct of a criminal trial, that the prosecutor may prosecute with earnestness and vigor--indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. Prosecutors must remember to live up to the code of professional ethics and fair play at all times or the American system of justice cannot endure, and ultimately our nation will lose confidence and trust in its rendering of justice, but, we refuse to reverse a conviction when we are convinced that the improper argument did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation of the defendant's rights. 54 Gonzalez, 933 F.2d at 432-33. 55 Thus, while we urge prosecutors, as officers of the court and representatives of the government, to use more temperate language when rebutting allegations of prosecutorial and/or police misconduct, we refuse to conclude that in the context of this case that the remarks had any prejudicial effect in light of the Reed factors. 2 F.3d at 1450 (the seriousness of the misconduct, invited response, adequate jury instructions, whether the defense counsel could rebut the statements, and the great weight of evidence against the defendant). The jury was presented with more than sufficient evidence of Rodriguez's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, see, supra, Section A, and the judge explicitly instructed the jury that the attorneys' closing arguments were not evidence, that they were to base their verdict solely on the evidence received, not on the closing arguments, and that they should return a verdict of guilty only if they found from [their] consideration of all the evidence that each one of [the elements of the crime of murder had] been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the instructions given, it is clear that Rodriguez was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's remarks about defense counsel lying to you concerning Santana's identification of Rodriguez. 56 Rodriguez also contests statements made by State's Attorney McMahon in which he advised the jury of the responsibilities of the lawyers and the judge in the case. He told them that it was the State's responsibility to prosecute the case, and the defense counsel's responsibility to try to get his client off. Rodriguez's attorney objected to the comment about his duty to get his client off, and the court immediately ruled: objection sustained as to that is his job. Furthermore, it is obvious that defense counsel did rebut the objectionable comment in his closing argument, Reed, 2 F.3d at 1450, when he told the jury that his task was not to get Rodriguez off, but rather to: 57 prevent [the prosecution] or anyone else from just telling you that what Theresa, if Theresa Santana says it was Joey Rodriguez, that it's the gospel, it's etched in granite somewhere, it's not. 58 And what I say and what he says or they say is not evidence. You know what the evidence is. 59 (Emphasis added). 60 We also note that the allegedly prejudicial comments concerning the defense counsel's duty did not involve a disputed issue in this case; namely, whether Santana, Morris and Hernandez credibly identified Rodriguez as the murderer. As we have previously held, [i]f the prosecutor attacked defense counsel's truthfulness only as to an undisputed issue, then it is unlikely that the jury's decision was affected. Pierson v. O'Leary, 959 F.2d 1385, 1388 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 168, 121 L.Ed.2d 115 (1992). The allegedly offensive comment about the defense attorney's responsibilities in the trial related neither to a disputed nor a relevant issue, such as identification. Thus, it is most unlikely that the jury's decision was affected by the remark, id., and we hold that Rodriguez suffered no prejudice from any of the State's Attorney's statements about defense counsel.