Opinion ID: 1615498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Argument, Objection, and Ruling

Text: In his closing argument, Banks argued to the jury that the witnesses to the shooting, which occurred at a crack house, were drug users, and he questioned their ability to perceive accurately. He noted that police detectives weren't there. They don't know what happened. . . . It is logical that all the detective[s] had is based on what people tell [them], outside of scientific evidence which they didn't even try to get [in this] case. So the State's case hinges upon the believability of [the state's witnesses at the scene]. The prosecuting attorney responded in rebuttal: [Police detectives] didn't just go on the word of a crack addict. They had several witnesses. And, ladies and gentlemen, when the scene is set and held [2] and we have to go and catch the Devil, there are no angels as witnesses. This is Hell. He is the Devil. They aren't angels. He is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Banks objected: Calling my client a devil is improper argument that was intentional and calls for a mistrial. The prosecutor responded that she was not name-calling: It's an analogy. I set up the analogy properly. Banks retorted that the analogy [is] improper when you say somebody is Satan. The circuit court overruled Banks' objection.