Opinion ID: 669733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The implication of unethical conduct

Text: 26 This issue arises out of the same comments that formed the basis of the defendant's arguments pertaining to the rehabilitation of one of the witnesses. See Sec. II.C. above. The prosecutor while questioning James Patterson asked how many guns he saw on the day of the incident. He indicated that he only saw one, his gun. She then confronted him with prior inconsistent statements in which he indicated there were two guns. Those statements had come only a few hours earlier, while he was being interviewed by the prosecutor. After the witness testified that he saw only one gun the following colloquy occurred: 27 Q. Mr. Patterson, from this morning until today, just a few hours later, what has happened that has caused your testimony to change? 28 A. I don't feel it has changed, it's your opinion. 29 Q. You met with Lance Jones, who's [the defendant's] attorney. Isn't that right? 30 A. Correct. 31 Q. And you met with him immediately prior to your testimony here. Isn't that right? 32 A. Yes, I did. 33 The prosecutor returned to this topic in her closing argument. While discussing the credibility of James Patterson as a witness she stated: 34 James Patterson, after meeting with me in my office, then met with defense counsel and another attorney. And you've heard testimony in reference to that meeting. That's the only thing that occurred between this morning and the time that he testified in this matter, which was approximately two hours later, perhaps two and a half, and that somehow in a two-and-a-half-hour period James Patterson's testimony changed from there were two guns at Comer Cox Park on that day to I only saw one gun, the gun that I had. 35 From this the defendant argues that the prosecutor implied that the defendant's attorney caused the witness to change his testimony, i.e. that he acted in an unethical way. 36 We agree with the Ninth Circuit that it is improper to state that defense counsel, in general, act[ed] in underhanded and unethical ways, and absent any specific evidence in the record, no particular defense counsel may be maligned. Bruno v. Rushen, 721 F.2d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S.Ct. 302, 83 L.Ed.2d 236 (1984). The defense counsel has a right to interview witnesses and the charge that the mere fact that such an interview takes place suggests the defense counsel acted unethically is not justified. We find that the prosecutor's comments do not cross the very fine line between permissible advocacy, and improper imputation of unethical behavior. The prosecutor was commenting on facts that were in evidence, namely that the witness' story had changed in a short period of time and that he had met with defense counsel. The prosecutor need not ignore the circumstances and evidence surrounding the prior inconsistent statements. The jury is entitled to draw its own conclusions from all of the evidence. Although the defendant argues that the prosecutor's comments were tantamount to her insinuating that the defense counsel acted improperly, we do not agree. The comments, which were tied very closely to the evidence, were within the realm of permissible advocacy. 9 37