Opinion ID: 1619317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Allegedly improper appeals to the jury

Text: Deck alleges this portion of the closing argument was improper personalization: [Prosecuting Attorney]: The last thing I'm gonna tell you and say to you is this: I  I've done this job long enough, and this isn't about me  but I've done this long enough that on occasion, five years after a case like this has gone  [Defense Counsel]: Objection; vouching, personalization. [The Court]: Sustained. [Prosecuting Attorney]: Often times, I'll get a phone call later on from a family member, and they'll say  [Defense Counsel]: Objection; relevance, same objection. [The Court]: Overruled. [Prosecuting Attorney]: And they'll say to me, to my granddaughter, I've told them about my loved one that was murdered. They want  they want to know what happened. Can you explain it to them. There are 19 grandchildren. 19 great-grandchildren, and I don't know how many more there'll be. And some day these people are going to be told about James and Zelma Long. And they're gonna be told about what wonderful parents they were, how they liked to fish. How their Grandmother got her masters and taught. They're gonna be told about these wonderful people. And you know the question they're gonna ask, is they're gonna say well, where are they now? They're gonna have to be told about this. And then they're gonna ask another question, and that question I get to some  unfortunately sometimes explain is was justice done? When you go up there, you'll tell us if justice is done. Now I'm gonna sit down and wait for your answer, so I can tell them.