Opinion ID: 166515
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Demeaning the mitigating evidence offered by Mr. Malicoat

Text: 69 Mr. Malicoat argues that it was improper for the prosecutor to demean the mitigating evidence that he presented. He notes that, in closing argument, the prosecutor stated that [Mr. Malicoat's attorney] told you in his opening we're not here to talk about excuses. He said no excuses. These mitigators—that's what these mitigators are. They're excuses. Tr. Trans. vol. V, at 206. 70 Mr. Malicoat did not object at trial. On direct appeal, the OCCA concluded that this line of argument was not improper. The court reasoned that the characterization of Malicoat's mitigating evidence as an attempt to blame his family for the cycle of child abuse, which resulted in Tessa's death, is a reasonable inference from the evidence. Malicoat, 992 P.2d at 401-02. 71 Again, we conclude that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply federal law. A prosecutor may present an argument to the jury regarding the appropriate weight to afford the mitigating factors offered by the defendant. See Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269, 279, 118 S.Ct. 757, 139 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998) (stating that the extensive arguments of both defense counsel and the prosecutor on the mitigating evidence and the effect it should be given in the sentencing determination indicated that the jury had considered that evidence); see also Walker, 228 F.3d at 1243 ([A] prosecutor is permitted to comment upon and to argue the appropriate weight to be given mitigating factors.) Fox v. Ward, 200 F.3d 1286, 1300 (10th Cir.2000) (rejecting an allegation of misconduct when the prosecutor merely commented on the weight that should be accorded to the mitigating factors and did not suggest that the jury was not permitted to consider the factors). 72