Opinion ID: 1401004
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prosecutor's Attack on Defense Counsel

Text: Mr. Wilson also alleges that the prosecutor improperly attacked defense counsel by asking a prospective juror during voir dire if he would let a smoke screen fool him, implying that it was defense counsel's job to trick the jury. Tr. trans. 2/5/97, at 133, 135. Defense counsel lodged a timely objection and requested a mistrial. The court denied the motion for a mistrial, sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard the statement as improper. Id. at 135. The OCCA found no error and held that [t]he prosecutor was merely asking the jury to use common sense to evaluate evidence and not be fooled by irrelevant information. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 470. Attacks on defense counsel can at times constitute prosecutorial misconduct. See, e.g., United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 9, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (counsel must not be permitted to make unfounded and inflammatory attacks on the opposing advocate.); United States v. Bennett, 75 F.3d 40, 46 (1st Cir.1996) (The prosecutor is expected to refrain from impugning, directly or through implication, the integrity or institutional role of defense counsel.). While the prosecutor may have intended to implore the jury to use common sense, the comments were arguably disparaging and suggested that defense counsel intended to be untruthful. United States v. Procopio, 88 F.3d 21, 32 (1st Cir.1996) (prosecutor told the jury that defense arguments were illusions . . . a smoke screen aimed at creating . . . an illusion, which were arguably excessive belittlement). Even if the prosecutor's comments were improper, however, the trial court's admonition to the jury cured any error. And, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt discussed above, we do not believe that this single comment seriously affected the jury's deliberations. Id. at 32.