Opinion ID: 197474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: prosecutorial argument about probable cause

Text: 108 The prosecutorial argument about probable cause (quoted in Part II.A above) exceeded proper bounds. We address the matter only briefly, because this issue is unlikely to arise again in a new trial. 109 The prosecutorial argument on this subject is defended on appeal on the ground that it was a fair response to defendant's closing argument. The defense summation included an argument to the jury that no incriminating evidence would have been found had the government searched defendant's living quarters because no such incriminating evidence existed. We assume, dubitante, that this was a permissible defense argument. In any event, the prosecutor did not object and the district judge did not intervene. 110 The response by the prosecutor to the defendant's argument was, nevertheless, not permissible. First, a prosecutor cannot escape the law's prohibitions against arguments on matters not properly to be considered by the jury in a criminal case by deliberately withholding an objection to an objectionable defense argument and arguing that the defense opened the door. Second, even if we assume that the defense argument was permissible and did open the door to a rebuttal argument by the prosecutor, the scope of a permitted response is not unlimited. Here, the prosecutor's response made assertions of fact about conduct and events that were not supported by any evidence in the record and added assertions of law that were not entirely accurate. See Part II.A above. Thus, the response was out of bounds. 111 We say no more on this subject because it is unlikely that this issue will arise in a new trial.