Opinion ID: 1757917
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: personal attacks on gore

Text: At some point in this trial, the prosecutor allowed his animosity towards Gore to overcome his professional judgment and responsibilities. Apparently because the same prosecutor had previously been involved in prosecuting him, Gore questioned the prosecutor as to whether the prosecutor had a vendetta against him, and why the prosecutor continued to prosecute cases against him. The prosecutor responded: Because I don't like people who kill women. How's that? You want to know why? Because I don't like people preying on women. Later in the cross-examination, Gore challenged the prosecutor to take the stand, to which the prosecutor responded: I didn't kill three women, you did. [ [6] ] You see, Mr. Gore, you killed women. That's why you're on the stand. A. And you're trying to kill me. Q. I didn't kill anyone. A. But you're trying to kill me. Q. Well, you know what, you're right, I am, because somebody who does what you do deserves to die. Clearly, it was improper for the prosecutor to express his personal belief about Gore's guilt. See Conley v. State, 592 So.2d 723, 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), reversed on other grounds, 620 So.2d 180 (Fla.1993); see also Conley v. State, 620 So.2d 180, 184 n. 7 (Fla.1993). To be sure, Gore himself was antagonistic during the questioning, but the conduct on the part of the defendant should not have given rise to this tit-for-tat exchange between prosecutor and defendant. During closing argument the prosecutor argued to the jury: You know, Ladies and Gentlemen, there's a lot of rules and procedures that I have to follow in court, and there's a lot of things I can say or can't say, but there's one thing the Judge can't ever make me say and that is he can never make me say that's a human being. It is clearly improper for the prosecutor to engage in vituperative or pejorative characterizations of a defendant or witness. See Reaves v. State, 639 So.2d 1, 5 (Fla.1994); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 36-37, 196 So. 596, 600 (1940); Johnson v. State, 88 Fla. 461, 463-64, 102 So. 549, 550 (1924); Pacifico v. State, 642 So.2d 1178, 1182-83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Goaded by Gore, the prosecutor abandoned any semblance of professionalism and engaged in needless sarcasm. By way of example, when Gore claimed everyone was out to get him because he was Jewish the prosecutor remarked: Q. Oh, Gore is a Jewish name? What did you have for Passover, a bunch of Matzo this year? This exchange prompted defense counsel to object that the prosecutor was badgering Gore and that the two were behaving like two juveniles. Another instance of the prosecutor's needless sarcasm occurred when, in response to Gore's claim of having held several occupations, the prosecutor asked: Q. So you were also a dancer? Were you a cook? How about a bottle washer? A. I have been a cook. Q. Candle maker? No? Nothing like that? Comments such as these demonstrate that this prosecutor lost sight of his professional responsibility.