Opinion ID: 2029523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Commenting on the Credibility of a Witness

Text: Finally, during her rebuttal to Mayhorn's closing argument, the prosecutor commented that Lyra was an appropriate name for Lyra Robinson, who corroborated Mayhorn's testimony. Mayhorn did not object. We understand this comment to suggest that Lyra Robinson was a liar. The state conceded at oral argument that this comment was inappropriate. We agree. It is improper for a prosecutor to give her own opinion about the credibility of a witness in closing argument. Porter, 526 N.W.2d at 364. This comment constituted prosecutorial misconduct.
We turn to the question of remedy and consider whether the combination of the evidentiary errors and the multiple incidents and types of prosecutorial misconduct deprived Mayhorn of a fair trial. The state had a strong case against Mayhorn. Two witnesses, Dickey and Longmire, testified that Mayhorn participated in planning the murder and drove the shooter to and from the murder scene. Mayhorn conceded at trial that his car and cell phone could have been present at the murder scene. Two additional witnesses testified that they spoke with Mayhorn shortly after the shooting. Cell phone records confirmed their calls to Mayhorn's cell phone during this critical timeframe, and indicated that Mayhorn's cell phone was traveling away from the Moorhead area at the time. We conclude that on the basis of the admissible evidence, a reasonable jury could have found Mayhorn guilty as charged. But even the strongest evidence of guilt does not eliminate a defendant's right to a fair trial. Harris, 521 N.W.2d at 355. The role of the prosecutor and trial court is not simply to convict the guilty, they are also responsible for providing a procedurally fair trial. Id. The state has an overriding obligation, shared by the court, to see that the defendant receives a fair trial, regardless of the defendant's culpability. Id. (quoting State v. Sha, 292 Minn. 182, 185, 193 N.W.2d 829, 831 (1972)). Here, the state and the court failed to satisfy this overriding obligation. The prosecutor's misconduct was a pervasive force at trial. She commented on the defendant's credibility, appealed to the passions of the jury, commented on Mayhorn's failure to call a witness, intentionally misstated evidence, asked a were they lying? question, referred to threats made by Mayhorn not in evidence, aligned herself with the jury, improperly attacked Mayhorn's character, commented on Mayhorn's opportunity to tailor his testimony, and commented on the credibility of a witness. At least 20 pages of the prosecutor's 80-page cross-examination of the defendant evince prosecutorial misconduct. The scope of the misconduct in this case is unprecedented in this court's memory and calls to mind the words of Judge Jerome Frank of the Second Circuit: This court has several times used vigorous language in denouncing government counsel for such conduct as that of the United States Attorney here. But, each time, it has said, that nevertheless, it would not reverse. Such an attitude of helpless piety is, I think, undesirable.    If we continue to do nothing practical to prevent such conduct, we should cease to disapprove it.    Government counsel, employing such tactics, are the kind who, eager to win victories, will gladly pay the small price of a ritualistic verbal spanking. United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co., 155 F.2d 631, 661 (2d Cir.1946) (Frank, J., dissenting). Because of the number of errors and the seriousness of some of them, we are unable to determine whether the jury based its verdict on the admissible evidence and the reasonable inferences derived therefrom, or on the state's pervasive misconduct and the consideration of evidence that should have been excluded. We are mindful that the constitution guarantees a fair trialnot a perfect or error-free trial. See State v. Greenleaf, 591 N.W.2d 488, 505 (Minn.1999). But if we are to sustain a murder conviction, we must be able to conclude that the conviction was based on admissible evidence presented at a fair trial. The questions before the jury in this case were whether Mayhorn planned and participated in the murder of Nasean Jordan and participated in the shooting of Janney Garcia. Because of numerous incidents and types of prosecutorial misconduct and two evidentiary errors, we are not able to conclude that the jury had a reasonable opportunity to focus on [those] question[s]. Harris, 521 N.W.2d at 355. We conclude that the cumulative effect of the prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary errors in this case denied Mayhorn the right to a fair trial. We therefore reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. GILDEA, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.