Opinion ID: 453004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Role of the Prosecutor

Text: 262 In our adversary system the prosecutor plays a special role. The prosecutor is both an advocate and an administrator of justice. It is his or her duty not only to convict but to seek justice. 1 See A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice, 2nd Ed. (1982) Sec. 3-1.1(b)(c); A.B.A. Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 7-3. As the Court said in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 633, 79 L.Ed.2d 655 (1935), 263 The [prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done .... 264 The prosecutor, therefore, wields the sword of justice. It is his duty to recall that this sword, though forged in the flame heat of zeal is alloyed with the iron of restraint. Houston v. Estelle, 595 F.2d 372, 384 (5th Cir.1978). The reasons that restraint is required are obvious. The defendant, the accused, simply by being brought to trial is a vulnerable target. Second, prosecutors who deal in these matters daily should be expected to be more restrained by virtue of their experience. Third, the prosecutor is a state employee and this frequently creates in jurors a sense of trust and fairness in and by him. Alschuler, Courtroom Misconduct by Prosecutors and Trial Judges, 50 Tex.L.Rev. 629, 632 (1972). Jurors, in varying degrees, are predisposed to give great weight to the words of a prosecutor. See Berger, supra, 295 U.S. at 88, 55 S.Ct. at 633; See also A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice, Sec. 3-5.8 (commentary). Therefore, a prosecutor should refrain from closing arguments calculated to inflame the passions of the jury or that serve to divert a jury from its duty to decide the case solely on the evidence. The prosecutor thus has a duty to guard the rights of the accused as well as those of society at large. A.B.A. Standards, Sec. 3-5.8(c)(d). This is so because, [s]ociety wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 265 Unfortunately, prosecutorial excess in closing argument is not an isolated or rare event. Judges and commentators bemoan its frequency but as of yet have had difficulty reducing it or offering useful suggestions for its reduction. Courtroom Misconduct, supra, 50 Tex.L.Rev. at 631. One former prosecutor and now a Florida state trial judge has said, [p]rosecutorial misconduct in closing argument is increasing in frequency and appears to be perniciously resistant to eradication. Because of its potentially disastrous effects upon a criminal trial, it demands the attention of prosecutors and the defense bar alike. Defoor, Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument, 7 Nova L.Rev. 443 (1983). 2 With these considerations in mind, an analysis of what constitutes the proper inquiry and of the error of the majority opinion follows.