Opinion ID: 2520889
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Judicial commentary during defense counsel's closing argument

Text: The deputy public defender (DPD) addressed certain perceived inconsistencies between Wallace and Marcella Ordways' descriptions of the Hard Rock Café bag during closing argument: The video camera itself. Mr. Khatib, in certainty, he said that he was certain that the video camera ... Hauge brought to him to pawn ... was tan and gold. That is his testimony. There's no way around that. His testimony is that the video camera that was attempted to be pawned was tan and gold. How did the Ordways describe their video camera? Black and silver. This is not the same camera that was taken from the Ordways. These are two totally separate items. But what's happened here is that Mr. Hauge is being blamed for something he did not take. Mr. Khatib described this Hard Rock Café bag as being brown and paper. The Ordways described their Hard Rock Café bag as being white and plastic. At this point, the circuit court interrupted the DPD: THE COURT: Counsel, she says it was paper, okay. [DPD]: And Mrs. Ordway said it was white and paper, two totally separate descriptions of the evidence. [DPA]: Excuse me. THE COURT: He said tan and paper. Let's stick to the facts, all right? The jury is asked to disregard that last remark by counsel. [DPD]: The fact is that the video camera that Mr. Hauge attempted to pawn was not thewas not the camera taken from the Ordways. Two different cameras were described to you. That is a fact and there's no way around that. The DPD completed his closing argument without objecting to the circuit court's interjection.