Opinion ID: 714850
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of Objection to Prosecution Statements

Text: 31 Garrett also cites his counsel's failure to object to statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument as exhibiting ineffective assistance. The remarks concerning the integrity of the prosecution and their duty to do justice were clearly improper. United States v. Jones, 965 F.2d 1507, 1514 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 346, 121 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992), and cert. denied, 506 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 346, 121 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992), and cert. denied, 508 U.S. 941, 113 S.Ct. 2418, 124 L.Ed.2d 640 (1993) (in evaluating closely similar remarks, court determined [t]he prosecutor went too far in arguing her own credentials for truthfulness to the jury.). Even though defense counsel opined during his closing that the prosecution's goal was to accumulate convictions, harsher statements impugning the integrity of the prosecution have been held not to excuse misconduct by the prosecution in response. See id. (citing United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12-14, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1044-46, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)). 32 However, Garrett's claim is not one for prosecutorial misconduct, but for his counsel's failure to object to the improper statements. Garrett relies on the finding of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to object to inflammatory remarks by the prosecution in Seehan v. Iowa, 37 F.3d 389 (8th Cir.1994), rev'd in part, 72 F.3d 607 (8th Cir.1995) (en banc). In Seehan, the defendant was charged with the murder of a two-year-old child. The prosecutor was a visibly expectant mother at the time of trial. In her opening statement, she noted that the slain child was the kind of little boy that I would like to have. He was the kind of little boy you would like to have. 37 F.3d at 391. During closing, the prosecution uttered remarks similar to those at issue here: 33 Our duty as prosecutors in this case has been to present the evidence as we developed it to you. We have a different type of duty than you would anticipate.... We represent the people of Iowa and Story County. In short, we represent you. We also represent the defendant because he is part of our society. 34 Id. 35 Sitting en banc, the court held that defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance in failing to object. 72 F.3d 607. The court found that all of the remarks, taken in context, were not so clearly improper as to demand objection, and that the petitioner also did not overcome the strong presumption that the challenged action [the decision not to object] might be considered sound trial strategy. 72 F.3d at 611 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065) (internal quotations omitted). It was also determined that the petitioner had failed to show prejudice as a result of his counsel's alleged omissions, based in part on the state's strong case. Id. 36 Here, the objectionable statements were confined to one portion of the prosecution's closing. Taken in context, they were not so egregious or patently inflammatory as to mandate an objection. Cf. Seehan, 37 F.3d at 391. Trial counsel's behavior did not fall below Strickland 's standard of objective reasonableness. 37