Opinion ID: 2326772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Expressions of Personal Opinion

Text: The defendant also claims that the state's attorney improperly expressed his personal opinion during closing arguments. Specifically, the defendant claims that the state's attorney improperly: (1) stated his view that some officers knew that Wilson was being assaulted and intentionally avoided witnessing that assault; (2) vouched for the credibility of the rookie officers; (3) expressed his opinion regarding the lack of credibility of certain veteran officers; (4) told the jury that he blame[d] those veteran officers for not stopping the alleged assault of Wilson; and (5) expressed his opinion that some of the police officers had disgraced their badges and perverted the law. [30] The state contends that the challenged remarks were proper comments on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. We agree with the state that the remarks were not improper. It is well settled that a prosecutor may not express his own opinion, directly or indirectly, as to the credibility of the witnesses.... Nor should a prosecutor express his opinion, directly or indirectly, as to the guilt of the defendant.... Such expressions of personal opinion are a form of unsworn and unchecked testimony, and are particularly difficult for the jury to ignore because of the prosecutor's special position.... Moreover, because the jury is aware that the prosecutor has prepared and presented the case and consequently, may have access to matters not in evidence ... it is likely to infer that such matters precipitated the personal opinions. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rizzo, supra, 266 Conn. at 248, 833 A.2d 363. 1