Opinion ID: 2614563
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rogan's Double Jeopardy Interests

Text: Turning to the facts of the instant case, we note the egregiousness of the deputy prosecutor's misconduct. As discussed above, the deputy prosecutor's remarks that it was every mother's nightmare to find some black, military guy on top of your daughter was an appeal to racial prejudice that had no objectively legitimate purpose. Given that such a comment would likely arouse a jury's possible predisposition against some particular segment of society so as to stigmatize Rogan, the deputy prosecutor's comment constituted a particularly egregious form of prosecutorial misconduct. Inasmuch as [r]acial fairness of the trial is an indispensable ingredient of due process and racial equality a hallmark of justice[,] Doe, 903 F.2d at 24-25, we can only conclude that the egregiousness of the deputy prosecutor's remark rose to such a level that we cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Rogan received a fair trial. Indeed, the prosecution is charged with knowing that arguments that rely on racial, religious, ethnic, political, economic, or other prejudices of the jurors introduce into the trial elements of irrelevance, irrationality, and unfairness that cannot be tolerated. [12] Under these circumstances, we hold that the deputy prosecutor's remark was so egregious, from an objective standpoint, that the inference is inescapable that the remark clearly denied Rogan his right to a fair trial. Accordingly, reprosecution of Rogan is barred by the double jeopardy clause of article I, section 10 of the Hawai`i Constitution.