Opinion ID: 461032
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: statements during guilt phase

Text: 29 Kirkpatrick singles out as an egregious example of the prosecutor's misconduct a statement the prosecutor allegedly made in arguing for a conviction of guilt. The transcript of the prosecutor's closing argument at the guilt phase of the trial contains the following paragraph: 30 What you have to do, if you want to acquit, if you want to acquit Freddie Kirkpatrick, you've got to say 'I believe everything he said today.' And even though some of it doesn't make sense and even though some of it is impossible, give him the benefit and let him go. And forget about Mr. Radosti [sic ] and forget about all of the other witnesses and forget about the past lives that Kirkpatrick has took. 25 31 The state contends that the prosecutor did not refer to past lives that Kirkpatrick has took but to past lies that Kirkpatrick has told and that the transcript is in error. No proceedings to correct the record have been taken, however, as Louisiana decisional law apparently permits. 26 In federal proceedings, the transcript is deemed prima facie a correct statement of the testimony taken and proceedings had, 27 but the record may be corrected upon proof that the transcript is incorrect. 28 Such a correction should presumably be made by the trial judge. 29 32 The issue of the correctness of the transcript was not raised during Kirkpatrick's appeal for the contention was not then made that the prosecutor's remark was inflammatory. Hence, no motion to correct the state trial transcript was made. While Louisiana has a procedure for correction of transcript error while an appeal is pending, its Code of Criminal Procedure contains no provision for such a correction after a judgment has become final, and Louisiana courts have never considered whether the record might then be changed. 33 The transcript, however, does not become gospel once the conviction is final. If it is in error, it should be correctible by a procedure analogous to that prescribed for earlier convictions, that is, by a motion to correct, addressed to the trial court. Here no motion was filed, but the issue of the correctness of the transcript was fully considered during the state habeas corpus hearing by the judge who had conducted the state trial. Because both parties were fully aware of the issue and evidence was adduced, the state court post-conviction proceedings appear to us to be sufficiently reliable to warrant our reliance on them. 34 At the state post-conviction hearing, the defense attorney testified that he did not remember that the words quoted in the transcript had been used. The state judge in his opinion said he did not hear such a statement as this. He continued: 35 Had this statement been made, I am convinced that I would have come from my chair, [defense counsel] from his, and [co-counsel for defendant] present would have had a conniption fit. 36 [The prosecuting attorney] is too experienced, too trained, too skilled and too intelligent to have made such a statement. This statement alone would have resulted in a mistrial. Further, [his] English albeit only some better than mine is considerably better than that as noted by the reporter. 37 This Court is convinced that instead of saying Forget about the past lives that Kirkpatrick has took, what [the prosecuting attorney] said was Forget about the past lies, l-i-e-s, that Kirkpatrick has told. 38 This finding is supported by the context in which the words were used and the earlier part of the prosecutor's argument in which he emphasized a number of alleged lies told by Kirkpatrick. While comment on other homicides not in evidence would indeed have been grossly improper, the finding that such a statement was not in fact uttered, made by the judge who had conducted the trial, should be considered a correction of the transcript. Thus corrected, the statement was not improper. 39 Kirkpatrick also complains that the state prosecutor improperly referred to the character of the victim, Mr. Radoste, during his argument in the guilt stage of the trial. There were two references. The following was the most severe: 40 I prefer to think that here's a man who apparently had been responsible all of his life. Here's a man that apparently has never hurt anybody. Here's a man that helped raise sisters. Here's a man that works, that takes care of his property, that apparently is concerned about other people, apparently a gentleman, apparently a kind man. 41 These comments were made by the prosecutor in an effort to refute Kirkpatrick's contention that he acted to fend off Radoste's homosexual advances, supposedly made at gunpoint. Considering the nature of the defense, we do not think that the prosecutor's remarks were intended to evoke the jury's sympathy. Nor were they excessive. They were, instead, a measured response to an asserted line of defense. While we recognize that references to the victim's character may be improper, 30 we do not find the argument made here to be unfair.