Opinion ID: 1405581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Misconduct in Rebuttal Argument

Text: ¶ 48 After both sides rested, the court advised counsel that the procedure for objecting during final argument was to simply state objection, reserve the matter, and let it go. Then after the jury is gone, the record is made. The State's opening argument and Defendant's final argument contained no remarkable impropriety. ¶ 49 The stage was set for the prosecutor's rebuttal argument. The prelude took place outside the jury's presence: MR. CORNELL: One final thing and it's this, Judge. I tried to comport myself within the rules of this Court and the rules of the lawyers during my argument. If there's anyone, by reputation, that's known to step on the Constitution in rebuttal argument, it's Mr. Zawada. I move the Court to carefully listen to him because I'm very concerned. This is now the scariest part of the trial other than Alex having to testify, Mr. Zawada on rebuttal. Please try and control him. MR. ZAWADA: Can the record reflect that I thought he was just going to jump over Detective O'Connor into my lap? He pointed his finger at me. THE COURT: Could I have the verdict forms? MR. ZAWADA: This has been going on throughout the entire trial. MR. CORNELL: This is our copy to look at. Mr. Zawada's wife is also fearing for his safety from me as well. MR. ZAWADA: And again, another gratuitous look at me, and a third. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CORNELL: It's rare that I get to see a sandbagger in such rare form, Judge. THE COURT: Well, Thomas S. Murphy, the Federal District Court Judge in the Second District of California, often remarked, counsel, let's try and make this look like a lawsuit, and it needs no response. ¶ 50 Mr. Zawada then delivered a rebuttal argument that covers about forty pages of transcript and is a masterpiece of misconduct. It contained proper argument, too. Early on, Mr. Zawada argued that the jury should look at Defendant's actions [s]hortly before, during, and shortly after the commission of the offense because, if you go like three days later, four days later, a month later ... they have had the opportunity to digest the criminal statutes, the case law, ... they've had the opportunity to sit around with the other inmates in the county jail, ... they have had the opportunity to think and reflect upon what they've done, ... they've had the opportunity to discuss matters with their sister or mother and everybody else involved in the case, and then they've decided to try to put a story together, if you don't look at people's actions at the relevant times, nobody would ever be convicted of anything. The record contained facts from which the State could fairly make a fabrication argument about Defendant and his family. For example, his sister did change her testimony, the change did favor Defendant, and Defendant did seem to know about this change before anyone else did. ¶ 51 Then the prosecutor went out of bounds, and outside the record, to argue that psychiatrists create excuses for criminals: How about the Judge back there in New York, was it, that was infatuated with the secretary or somebody else and he followed her around and sent her notes and sent her letters and all kinds of things and wouldn't leave her alone. I don't know if he stalked her or not, and ultimately they looked into the case a little bit. You know what they did, they created a syndrome for him to try to justify his action. ¶ 52 Then the prosecutor, with no evidentiary support, argued that defense counsel paid Dr. Belan to fabricate a diagnosis: [Dr. Belan] knows the result he's looking for, and that's it. He knows the result he is looking for. Subject comes in with schizophrenicpotential schizophrenic diagnosis. He knows right there what he is looking for, and $950 later, yes, that's what he's got.... ... He knows the result for he knows the result he wants. .... I mean he didn't see him, ladies and gentlemen, this defendant didn't walk off the street and say I am not feeling well, I have had this headache, I have got something wrong. I mean he comes to him in the most suspicious circumstances that you can ever have. He gets referred by his attorney. Just like he was in December of '91 for a psychiatric evaluation. Reportedly suffering from schizophrenia, and lo and behold, confirmed. Perfect. ¶ 53 After proper argument on self-defense and other issues, the prosecutor returned to his improper fabrication argument: This is December of '91. He was referred by his attorney for psychological evaluation. When he was asked if he was depressed or nervous, he thought for a while and he says he feels naturally depressed for being in jail. This is '91. See it kind of develops, ladies and gentlemen, as it gets along. ¶ 54 A few moments later, the prosecutor argued that the mental health experts were mouthpieces for Defendant. And what do you hearwhat are you hearing from these doctors? You are hearing the defendant. They are only telling you what the defendant told them. A few moments later, the prosecutor returned to the fabrication argument again, stating, So February '92, ladies and gentlemen, we get a request for Rule 11 proceeding, court proceedings, in this matter. Not August, September, October, November, December [of '91]. The objection was sustained. ¶ 55 The prosecutor soon merged his mouthpiece argument into an improper comment on Defendant's failure to testify, after first suggesting that psychiatry was an impediment to truth and justice: [Defense counsel] wants you to make your decision based on what Dr. Potts has to say and ignore the evidence in this case. He wants you to forego and to give up and to relinquish ... [your right] to pass judgment, for you to act as a member of this community and to decide, ladies and gentlemen. Not Dr. Potts, not some $4,000 or $6,000 hired doctor who wants to come in here.... I mean you stand, ladies and gentlemen, between this great power of psychiatry and truth and justice here. I mean, ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Potts, Dr. Belan, they could no more tell you what was going on inside of that man's mind than they can tell you whether or not he was abducted by a UFO.... The only way you know what is inside of a person's mind is to look at their words and actions at the relative times, shortly before, during, and shortly after the commission of the offense. And you do that job. I mean, after all, this is a jury trial, it is a search for the truth. You know, bring your witnesses in here, prove your case. You know, have them testify. Cross-examine them. Evaluate their demeanor when they are testifying, their manner while testifying. Any bias or prejudice they might have. And Mr. Cornell wants you to find this defendant not guilty by reason of insanity based on what the defendant himself is saying. I mean that's it, that's it, that's what the defendant himself is saying because there is no other evidence here to justify a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, other than what the defendant is saying and what he's told everybody else in this case. All these other psychiatrists or psychologists, or whoever they may have been. And you know he lies. You know he's got a motive for lying. That's what you have seen here ladies and gentlemen. You've seen the defendant testifying, except it was in the form of a doctor, all suited up nice and neat, a tie, shirt, suit, nice and presentable, good credentials and everything else. But what was it that was being said? Who was speaking? He was a mouthpiece for the defendant. That's all you've seen here. This is not a science, it's an art. It's an art. It's guesswork. He's relatedDr. Potts has related to you only what the defendant told him, only the words the defendant uttered, and from that conclusion, he's decided he was insane. That he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. A few moments later, the prosecutor rhetorically asked if the basis of the doctors' opinions was what the defendant's been telling you all along? He then answered the question by stating, It's the defendant who's testified. Defendant had not testified. ¶ 56 The prosecutor then got the jurors thinking about how guilty they would feel if they found Defendant not guilty by reason of insanity and heard about a murder in the future: [Y]ou know, the next time you are out on a nice, pretty, sunny afternoon, perhaps with your family, and you are driving along the roads or maybe you are at a picnic, your radio is on and you hear about a murder or something like that, or an aggravated assault, you think back to this case. You are going to have to be able to say right then and there that you were convinced ... that the evidence was clear and convincing that this man was insane. Not just paranoid schizophrenic, not mentally ill, not possibly mentally ill, but insane. Because you know, you go back there in your deliberation now and you are sitting there and you can't imagine that day, ladies and gentlemen, when you hear this on the report and you can't say, yes, I was clearly convinced, you know, that the defendant carried his burden. The objection was overruled. ¶ 57 After the prosecutor finished, Mr. Cornell requested ten minutes of surrebuttal on the insanity defense. The trial court, which had previously denied a similar request, again denied it. After the jury was instructed, Mr. Cornell moved for a mistrial, arguing that the prosecutor's reference to the Rule 11 evaluation in February 1992 was prejudicial error, as was the comment about jurors hearing about a future murder. The motion was denied.