Opinion ID: 2408540
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Prosecutor Screamed and Yelled at the Jury

Text: Kenley argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's screaming and yelling at the jury. While we do not condone behavior intended to intimidate or inflame the jury, it is difficult to assess from the record exactly how loud the prosecutor screamed, what demeanor the prosecutor exhibited while screaming, and what potential effect this alleged behavior might have had on the jury. The task of judging the prosecutor's demeanor is one best left to the discretion of trial courts. Although defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor's screaming, she attempted to turn the argument against the prosecutor in her closing argument by stating: And Mr. Hulshof can stand up here and he can scream and he can yell and maybe rightfully so about the actions that Kenneth Kenley has taken during his lifetime. But where were the people like Mr. Hulshof who screamed and yelled when Melvin Kenley pushed Shirley Murphy out of a moving car in front of her son? Where were the people that screamed and yelled when Melvin Kenley was brandishing a weapon and threatening to kill his mother, his son, his daughter? Where were the people to scream and yell when Melvin Kenley gave his son a gun to sleep with underneath his pillow? Where were the people to scream and yell when his mother didn't enroll him in school? Where were the people to scream and yell when his father and his grandmother would put him into the hospital one day and drag him back out the next?.... Where were the people that screamed and yelled when he was never taken back to see Dr. Maria Manion to get the treatment that he so desperately needed?     Where were the people that screamed and yelled when he rubbed the wet bed clothes in his son's face? The decision not to object to the screaming, but to respond in another way, was trial strategy and not a ground for ineffective assistance of counsel. Kenley further claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's rebuttal that: This was killing for the sake of killing. And she saysyeah, I'm yelling and screaming. I'm sorry. I get a little angry when I see senseless violence. This was an unjustified, unprovoked attack on an innocent maninnocent people. Completely senseless. And I get a little miffed. This argument was in direct response to defense counsel's remarks. The prosecutor is allowed to rebut and explain argument by defense counsel. State v. O'Neal, 618 S.W.2d 31, 36 (Mo.1981). To the extent that this argument might have exceeded the prosecutor's right to rebut, it did not create a reasonable probability that the jury would have decided the penalty phase differently.