Opinion ID: 166515
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conducting arguments in the voice of Tessa

Text: 56 The prosecutor conducted a substantial portion of his rebuttal argument in the guilt phase as if he were Tessa. For example, he started the argument by stating today I want to take you back to February, 1997, because today I'm Tessa Leadford and I live here in Chickasha. That's the man with Mrs. Leadford who gave me life. And that's who I live with. See Tr. Trans. vol. IV, at 42. 57 Mr. Malicoat objected to this approach, but the trial court overruled the objection. On appeal, the OCCA explained that [w]hile theatrical, we do not find this argument overly prejudicial. Malicoat, 992 P.2d at 401. The court added that [t]he argument very nearly constitutes an improper solicitation of sympathy for the victim, but is largely based upon the evidence presented. Id. 58 Upon review of the record, we conclude that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply federal law in holding that the prosecutor's argument was not sufficiently prejudicial to deprive Mr. Malicoat of a fair trial. As the court observed, the statements made by the prosecutor as to Mr. Malicoat's abusive conduct and the extent of Tessa's injuries are supported by evidence in the record. The prosecution's case was compelling. Thus, Mr. Malicoat is not entitled to relief on this claim of prosecutorial misconduct. 59