Opinion ID: 1233313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: misconduct of the deputy prosecuting attorney in argument to the jury.

Text: Two statements made by the deputy prosecuting attorney, in the course of rebuttal argument, are urged as error. The one of which appellant makes the most bitter complaint is (p. 1332), But now we get down to the point where everything is deadly serious. You have a tremendous responsibility. Counsel refers to all of this terrible publicity. It is true. The eyes of the entire world probably are upon you right now and the evidence that has been presented here against this defendant has been widespread. There is no question about that. You should return a proper verdict, that is your responsibility. You are the ones that are going to have to look at yourselves the rest of your lives. You are the ones that are going to have to be with your neighbors and friends and hold your head up high and say, `I did what my heart and mind told me.' You are not to be influenced at all by any sympathy or prejudice. Nothing at all can be considered by you except the evidence from this witness stand. The appellant says that the purpose of that statement was to remind the jury of the great amount of adverse publicity against him, and to remind them that they ought to take into account the public clamor and its desire that the appellant be convicted; and, further, to remind them that if they returned a verdict of not guilty, they would be held up to public disfavor and ridicule. We do not so interpret the statement by the deputy prosecuting attorney. Comment on the matter of publicity was invited by the emphasis that appellant's counsel placed on it in his argument in such statements as (p. 1266), ... the rumors and the gossip and the frenzied, insane propaganda that could have been created only by somebody with the insanity of a Goebels.... and, ... the tremendous amount of unfavorable publicity that has been circulated about Mr. Beck, almost to the point of saturation of the public press and the radio and the newspapers, repeated and repeated and repeated; the Nazi system. Even in the portion of the argument objected to, the deputy prosecuting attorney tells the jury, ... You are not to be influenced at all by any sympathy or prejudice. Nothing at all can be considered by you except the evidence from this witness stand. The other statement of the deputy prosecuting attorney, concerning which complaint is made, has to be placed in context to be understood. Appellant's counsel had been at some pains to explain to the jury why he did not call Fred Verschueren, Jr., as a witness. (Verschueren, Jr. was the person to whom appellant supposedly had given the nineteen hundred dollars to turn over to the owner of the 1952 Cadillac.) Commenting on counsel's explanation, the deputy prosecuting attorney said (p. 1316), He tells us that he wants to protect Mr. Verschueren, Jr. Mr. Verschueren, Jr., you will recall, testified before the grand jury. There was testimony to that effect here. Mr. Beck testified before the grand jury and the grand jury wasn't made up of four ogres who were breathing down the neck of anybody. It was made up of seventeen people just like you, seventeen citizens selected to sit on that grand jury and seventeen people after they heard the testimony of Mr. Regal and Mr. Verschueren, Jr. returned an indictment and that is what you are trying here today. Now the question is, in Mr. Burdell's strategy, should he take Mr. Beck and put him on the stand and have him explain this which he didn't do and could he bring Mr. Verschueren, Jr. in to have him explain this which he didn't do, because he felt most likely, we can assume he felt this way, if I do that, I really am sunk, so what I have to do is to try to talk the jury into assuming things from these little bits of evidence that I can bring in with witnesses of some stature in the community. (This is taken from the statement of facts. Italics are ours.) Appellant complains of the italicized portion. (As quoted in appellant's brief, Mr. Regal is changed to Mr. Beck in the next to the last line of the italicized portion; and we will assume, for present purposes, the change to be correct.) Appellant urges that the italicized portion of the argument throws the weight and prestige of the grand jury into the scale against him. Read in context, as an answer to the appellant's explanation for not calling Fred Verschueren, Jr. as a witness, it is a proper response. We have consistently held statements of a prosecuting attorney, which would ordinarily be improper, will not be regarded as prejudicial error where they are in answer to and are invited by the argument made by defense counsel. State v. Collins, supra ; State v. Taylor (1955), 47 Wn. (2d) 213, 287 P. (2d) 298; State v. Harold (1954), 45 Wn. (2d) 505, 275 P. (2d) 895; State v. Van Luven, supra ; State v. Wright, supra . Appellant does not argue, under this division of his brief, his other claim of misconduct of counsel: that the prosecutor, by an illustration used in argument ( i.e., that one who stole a bracelet before a court room full of people was entitled to the presumption of innocence if he went to trial), destroyed any effect of the presumption of innocence, and thereby denied him the benefit of that presumption. We do not agree. Prosecutors have been using similar illustrations for many years, but it has never before been urged as a denial of due process. Appellant argues this in his division X, but we have placed it with other claimed misconduct of counsel.