Opinion ID: 2323462
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Government's Closing and Rebuttal Arguments

Text: The prosecutor began his closing argument by stating that the case was about three things: credibility, motive, and opportunity. As he spoke to each of those elements in turn, he repeatedly emphasized Harrison's untoward contacts with T.G.'s fellow students. First, attacking Harrison's credibility, he urged the jury to look at the phone records of Harrison's telephone calls to J.M., T.D., and T.G. on Easter Sunday, and asked, What was the defendant doing calling these girls constantly? The prosecutor left that question unanswered as he proceeded to defend the credibility of the government's student witnesses and turned to the question of motive. Recounting Harrison's sexually suggestive comments, the prosecutor argued as follows: And the defendant made all these statements to these three individuals, telling [J.M.] that she has beautiful breasts. He was up all night thinking about her. Telling [T.D.] that she shouldn't be gay, that she needs a man. Telling [T.D.] that he wanted her to be his girlfriend. Asking [A.G.] thatto be his girlfriend. Telling [A.G.], I want to talk to you, but not on campus. That's significant, ladies and gentlemen. What is that right there? That's motive. The prosecutor did not explain what he meant by linking Harrison's sexually suggestive statements to motive; he did not specify the motive those statements evinced. But he revisited the subject when he addressed Harrison's opportunity to commit the charged offenses. Spingarn High School was an opportunity-rich environment for someone with motive like Barry Harrison, the prosecutor argued, because he was unsupervised and able to walk all around the building, pull kids out of class, grab a kid who is walking the halls, take them down a stairwell where there's no video camera, and do what he can. And as proof that Harrison sought out the opportunity to commit this crime, the prosecutor cited the crucial testimony of A.G.: The defendant had the opportunity to commit this crime. The defendant sought out the opportunity to commit this crime. How do you know that? The crucial testimony in this case, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to opportunity is [A.G.] What did she tell you? That the after talking to the defendant twice, first time in the auditorium, second time when he asked her to be his girlfriend and asked her for her phone number. The third time, he said, I want to talk to you. She was like, Okay, let's talk. What did Barry Harrison tell her, No, not here. I don't like talking on campus. This was a crime of opportunity, ladies and gentlemen. Barry Harrison sought out the opportunity. This crime could have happened to any one of these girls. Could have happened to any girl. [T.G.], the prosecutor concluded, was just the unlucky one who was, perhaps, a little bit too trusting or just, perhaps, not wary enough, who went down to the bottom of that stairwell where the defendant could assault her and not be caught on video camera. [6] Responding to the prosecutor's argument, defense counsel reminded the jury that Harrison was not on trial for his comments to students other than T.G. [7] In rebuttal, the prosecutor told the jury that those comments were proof of Harrison's motive to commit this offense: [T]he defendant is not on trial for these other statements that he made to [T.G.] and [J.M.] and [T.D.] and [A.G.] He's not on trial for hitting on them, essentially. But those statements are evidence of his motive to commit this offense and you can take those statements as proof that he had the motive to commit this offense.