Opinion ID: 4237534
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-examination of penalty phase experts

Text: ¶116 Hulsey contends that “loud verbose witness attacks began in earnest” as the prosecutor cut off answers and raised his voice at Dr. John J. Wicks, a psychologist who testified regarding Hulsey’s mental abnormalities. Hulsey objected and the trial court overruled, stating that it was just the prosecutor’s style. Hulsey also notes that the trial court sustained objections regarding the prosecutor’s tone in both Dr. Albert Globus’ and Dr. Mark Cunningham’s testimony, warning the prosecutor to “keep the tone.” Hulsey further states that the trial court “admonished [the prosecutor] to not be disrespectful” in his cross-examination with the prison expert, James Aiken. ¶117 The trial court observed that the prosecutor’s tone was consistent for all witnesses and that there was no misconduct. As stated 36 STATE V. HULSEY Opinion of the Court above, see supra ¶¶ 93–95, the trial court is in the best position to gauge whether a counsel’s tone crosses the line into misconduct. Here, Hulsey has given us no reason to disturb the court’s finding.