Opinion ID: 3003989
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prosecution’s Closing Argument at Sentencing

Text: Corcoran further claimed that he was deprived of due process when the prosecutor made five statements to the sentencing jury at closing argument. One statement, according to Corcoran, improperly “speculat[ed] on what a victim imagined or said: ‘[W]e imagine that last victim must gasp for breath, must grasp for mercy.’ ” Habeas Pet. at 12. Another statement “speculated on future dangerousness and misdefined life without parole in stating ‘[Corcoran] is not a man we want back on our streets in his lifetime.’ ” Id. Two others “speculated on victim opinion as to the appropriate sentence[:] I can hear all four of them, Jim, Scott, Tim, and Doug[;] their souls, their very life blood spilled in that home cries out for equality, justice. And you know we can never fully give those men that equality of justice and do you know why? Because this man has only one life to give for the four he took. . . . I think I can still hear Jim and Tim and Doug and Scott and you know what; they don’t ask us for revenge, they ask again for the equality of justice and that equality of justice comes with retribution.” Id. at 12-13. And the fifth statement “describe[d] Petitioner as a dangerous individual who placed all people in danger including the jury: ‘Innocent lives are expendable. All of us.” Id. at 13. These arguments about the prosecution’s closing argument are waived for the additional reason that Corcoran never raised them in state court. See Corcoran v. State, 739 14 Nos. 07-2093 and 07-2182 N.E.2d 649, 655 (Ind. 2000). By raising the argument for the first time with the district court, Corcoran procedurally defaulted his claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2264. Corcoran points to no cause for this procedural default, so we will not grant habeas relief unless the prosecutor’s arguments resulted in “a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333, 339 (1992). We find no miscarriage of justice here, as the prosecutor’s statements are not the type of constitutional error that would render Corcoran ineligible for the death penalty. Id. at 341, 347.