Opinion ID: 1472408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: House of Cards Argument

Text: Finally, appellant contends that the prosecutor erred in referring to his testimony as a house of cards that had come tumbling down, and otherwise commenting on his veracity, since the references implied that Washington was lying. Again, the government argues that these statements were fair comments on the evidence. Specifically, the government notes that appellant admitted that he had not been forthcoming initially about his role in the offense, and that defense counsel so stated in closing argument. Therefore, the government contends that it was justified in commenting on Washington's veracity. The government additionally argues that even if the remark were improper, no prejudice flowed from it, as defense counsel used equally explicit language in attacking the government's witnesses. This argument was a fair argument on appellant's credibility based on the evidence. Counsel is not precluded from arguing that the testimony of a particular witness should not be believed when the jury could reasonably draw that inference from contradictory evidence in the record[.] McGrier, supra, 597 A.2d at 43. In this case, appellant admitted in testimony that he did not tell the truth initially about his involvement in the shooting. Although we have condemned assertions by counsel that a witness lied on the witness stand, saying that a witness' testimony is incredible is permissible when that is a logical inference from the evidence and not merely the opinion of counsel. Id. (citing Irick, supra, 565 A.2d at 35). The house of cards formulation was fair comment, given the many bases in the evidence to challenge appellant's credibility.