Opinion ID: 1236812
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's guilt phase argument.

Text: (4) Relying on People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 789-791 [103 Cal. Rptr. 161, 499 P.2d 129], defendant charges the prosecutor with prejudicial misconduct during guilt phase argument because she impugned the integrity of his counsel, in part by quoting from Justice White's dissenting opinion in United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218, 256-258 [18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1174-1175, 87 S.Ct. 1926], to the effect that law enforcement has an obligation to ascertain the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime ( id., at p. 256 [18 L.Ed.2d at p. 1174]), which defense counsel do not. [8] The trial court overruled defendant's objection to the use of Justice White's observations but admonished the jury not to consider any citations of judicial statements in deciding the case. The court had also given the standard instruction that statements of counsel were not evidence. The trial court should not have sanctioned the prosecutor's comments. The closing statements of counsel should relate to the law and the facts of the case as each side interprets them. Whether or not attributed, the views expressed in Justice White's dissent interject an extraneous generalization, potentially diverting the jury's attention from the specifics upon which they must focus. Moreover, this generalization is not one that is shared by all judges or courts. It paints with too broad a brush. ( People v. Pic'l (1981) 114 Cal. App.3d 824, 871 [171 Cal. Rptr. 106], disapproved on another point in People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480, 498 [244 Cal. Rptr. 148, 749 P.2d 803].) We therefore disapprove its use, even in response to a personal attack by defense counsel. ( Ibid. ) As in People v. Perry, supra , however, we reject the possibility the remarks prejudiced defendant. (7 Cal.3d at pp. 790-791.) The prosecutor did not express any improper personal opinions regarding defendant's guilt or the credibility of witnesses. (See People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 848 [97 Cal. Rptr. 684, 489 P.2d 564].) This portion of the argument was relatively brief and, especially when viewed in context, hardly so inflammatory as to distract the jury from a thorough and reasoned evaluation of the evidence. (See People v. Perry, supra, 7 Cal.3d at pp. 790-791.) Finally, the court specifically admonished the jury not to consider any citations or any judge's statements in any case.... It is not to be part of your consideration.... We find no likelihood that the jury failed to place the arguments of counsel in proper perspective or that the objectionable comments materially contributed to the verdict. ( Id., at p. 790.)