Opinion ID: 1969263
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Counsel objected to alleged improper closing argument.

Text: During State's closing arguments, the following exchange occurred: State: What happened here, ladies and gentlemen, is these two defendants have taken all the facts and they've dodged them like a mine field, trying to weave them into a story. Trying to weave them into a lie that you will believe. That's what this is about. In fact, you even heard Mr. Baumann get up and ask Mr. Elliott how they had a meeting and discussed the fact that, Didn't you tell me that you were going to say you were too drunk and that you wouldn't snitch on Mr. Jenner? Well, see ... Baumann: Objection, your Honor. That's a misstatement of the record. Trial Court: Overruled. State: You see, they had this kind of a meeting. They had this idea. Hey, we can both get out of this deal together if we stick together. We can both get out. But you know what? You've heard it said before, there is no honor among thieves. There certainly isn't honor among murderers. When it came down to it, it was each man for himself. They pointed the finger at each other and the very least, ladies and gentlemen, you can't walk out of that jury room without at least finding one of them guilty, because the evidence is there. Jenner suggests that this attack on his attorney's integrity prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury and claims Baumann erred in not objecting to this prejudice. Prior to Elliott's testimony, Baumann met with Elliott and Elliott's attorney concerning corroboration of Jenner's defense. At trial, Elliott altered his story, and Baumann impeached him on it. During closing arguments, the government is free to draw any reasonable inferences from the evidence adduced at trial. United States v. Richman, 944 F.2d 323, 333 (7th Cir.1991). Nevertheless, it is not allowed to stretch those inferences into improper arguments. Baumann made his objection that State was misstating the record, but was overruled. Claims that he should have additionally argued prejudice, do not amount to ineffective representation.