Opinion ID: 1536009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Penalty Phase Summation

Text: Finally, defendant claims that the prosecutor's penalty phase summation was an unmitigated assault upon the character of defense counsel and the defense witnesses. Defendant argues that the following passages imply that defense counsel was dishonest and trying to mislead the jury: Have you seen any of those photographs showing the residences, showing the family, showing the family gatherings? Do you think that those photographs documented that things were not as the defense would have you believe? Do you think that if those photos showed shacks and rags and squalor, don't you know you would have seen them? They would have been in here poster size. But you didn't see any of them. In fact, you didn't hear about those albums and that they existed and that Carol Krych had them until I brought it up on crossexamination. Again, members of the jury, think about what hasn't been given to you, what hasn't been revealed to you when you assess the integrity of the defense presentation. Defendant claims those statements improperly suggest the defense was withholding unfavorable evidence. The trial court directed the prosecutor not to comment on who the defense chose to call as experts. The trial court instructed the prosecutor to comment only on the qualifications of experts and what they have said, and things of that nature. The court also instructed the jury that [t]he defense decision-making as to who to obtain as experts, how to defend, how to structure the defense, those types of things are not for consideration for the jury and you should exclude any type of reference or any inference that could be made with regard to that.... Defendant nevertheless contends that a stronger instruction was needed. Defendant also challenges the prosecutor's discussion of witness Krych's testimony. The prosecutor stated: On direct examination she told you that she was a forensic social worker, and her job was to present you this fair and balanced picture of the defendant's background and childhood. What you didn't learn until cross-examination was that Ms. Krych was a capital mitigation specialist, and one who was handsomely paid for her role in this case. And ironically, if you will recall, she would not admit that she was a capital mitigation specialist until I confronted her with her own notes where she described herself that way. If the defense is so proud of that, then why did she take such pains to deny it under oath until I confronted her with it? Her role, her job in this case, I suggest to you, was to present a picture of the defendant as sympathetic as possible. It didn't matter if the truth had to be stretched. It didn't matter if information was left out or omitted. Truth became irrelevant. Lastly, defendant challenges the prosecutor's discussion of Paul Timmendequas' statements. The prosecutor stated: You have also heard that [Paul] now believes that his brother should die for what he did. The defendant's own brother thinks he should die for what he did. This is very compelling, I would suggest.