Opinion ID: 1943879
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appeals to Jurors' Sense of Civic Duty to Send a Message

Text: Appellant reminds us that we have previously stated that an attorney must not ask a jury to `send a message' to anyone.... Juries are not in the message-sending business. See Bowman v. United States, 652 A.2d 64, 71 (D.C.1994); see also Carpenter v. United States, 635 A.2d 1289, 1296 (D.C.1993). We find no plain error affecting substantial rights arising from the government's closing argument, the following excerpts of which were highlighted by appellant to demonstrate his assertion that the jury was impermissibly asked to send a message:  The prosecutor told the jury, You've been brought together because of your civic duty. You've been brought together because [of] our belief that justice will reign. We've been brought together to enforce our laws, in our city, ourselves.  In discussing the killing of Wiseman, the prosecution stated that, for appellant, justice would come at the end of a[gun], and asked the jury to take it to the final step, to reject the notion [that Simpson committed the triple murder], to affirm our laws, to make perfectly clear that lawlessness, disorder, obstruction will not rule the day.  The prosecutor also said that the evidence indicated that appellant felt he was not going to be held accountable. When I began this closing argument, I talked about all of us coming together and why we were here. Today, you stand to hold the man accountable, the very man who by his own hand sent the signals indicating no, he wasn't [accountable].  Finally, the prosecutor stated, And through your verdicts, let us send a loud and clear message that this attempt to avoid justice will not stand, that this effort to obstruct justice will not go unchallenged. And that our laws will be enforced in our city ourselves. [Emphasis added.]