Opinion ID: 712827
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Characterization of Defense Attorney Statements as Lies

Text: 24 Thierman first contends that the prosecutor's remarks to the effect that defense counsel was lying constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. On four occasions during her lengthy closing arguments, the prosecutor referred to defense counsel's statements as lies. After the government completed its argument, defense counsel objected again to the characterization of counsel's efforts as lies. 25 There can be no question that personal attacks on either counsel by the other are unprofessional, and if prejudicial, require reversal. See U.S. v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 10 (1984) (citing ABA Standards for Criminal Justice ). In this case the district court recognized the impropriety of counsel's remarks. (Trial Tr., 10/29/94 at 60.) Nonetheless, we have examined the statements in the context of the trial as a whole, as required by Young, 470 U.S. at 10. While the personal attacks should have been stopped at once by the trial court, we find in them, standing alone, insufficient grounds for a new trial. We note that there was unprofessional conduct and insufficient civility on both sides. In this context, it is not more probable than not that the misconduct in question materially affected the jury's verdict, as required under harmless error review. U.S. v. Mostella, 802 F.2d 358, 361 (9th Cir.1986).