Opinion ID: 4693763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attorneys’ Arguments

Text: In his closing argument, the prosecutor contended that Martinez’s murder was “a robbery gone bad.” His theory was that Ford had put his left hand on the outside of the driver’s side door, had reached through the partially opened driver’s window with his right hand, and had shot Martinez in the head: There is compelling evidence in this case, . . . and that would be the defendant’s palm print on the victim’s car on his driver’s door, right in the position where a person, a right-handed person with a firearm in their right hand, would have shot and killed the victim. . . . No unusual contortion would have to take place for a person of 5'8 to stick their hand in there and fire. The prosecutor further argued that Ford’s recorded telephone conversation with his girlfriend and his Facebook post supported his contention that Ford shot Martinez. The prosecutor did not try to reconcile his contention that Ford had reached through the driver’s side window and shot Martinez as he sat in the driver’s seat with Dr. Hogan’s testimony, which required the gun to have been “at least” three feet away. The prosecutor also did not try to reconcile his contention with Johnson’s testimony that she had heard the sound of a shot and broken glass with the photograph of the SUV showing that two rear side passenger windows had been shattered. 16 FORD V. PEERY In her responsive closing argument, Ford’s attorney contended that the fingerprint identification was unreliable. She emphasized the poor quality of the latent palm print lifted from the SUV by Zamora and contended that the unqualified fingerprint analysts were not to be trusted. She contended that in his telephone conversation with his girlfriend, Ford was “talking about the fact that he’s in custody for a gun and thank God, thank God he didn’t kill anyone.” She characterized Ford’s Facebook post as “talking smack to someone behind a computer screen.” At the end of his rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury: This idea of this presumption of innocence is over. Mr. Ford had a fair trial. We were here for three weeks where . . . he gets to cross- examine witnesses; also an opportunity to present information through his lawyer. He had a fair trial. This system is not perfect, but he had a fair opportunity and a fair trial. He’s not presumed innocent anymore. (Emphases added.) Ford’s attorney objected, “That misstates the law.” The court held a sidebar. The court then said in front of the jury, “All right. The objection is overruled.” The prosecutor resumed, “And so we’re past that point.” The jury began its deliberations shortly thereafter, on the same day.