Opinion ID: 676357
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Remarks Disparaging Defense Counsel

Text: 7 As petitioner notes, the district court addressed only four of his five claims of prosecutorial misconduct related to closing argument, finding each without merit. Holiday argues that during closing argument the prosecutor made remarks that disparaged defense counsel. Specifically, Holiday points to the prosecutor's statement I think that attitude on the part of the defense is reprehensible. We conclude that this claim must fail. 8 In analyzing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the court must first determine whether the statements made by the prosecutor are improper. We look to five factors when weighing the propriety of a prosecutor's comment: 9 1) the nature and seriousness of the prosecutorial misconduct, 2) whether the prosecutor's statements were invited by conduct of defense counsel, 3) whether the trial court instructions to the jury were adequate, 4) whether the defense was able to counter the improper arguments through rebuttal, and 5) the weight of the evidence against the defendant. 10 United States v. Badger, 983 F.2d 1443, 1450-51 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2391 (1993); see also United States v. Reid, 2 F.3d 1441 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 898 (1994). If the comment was improper, the court must look at the remarks in light of the entire record to determine if defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Badger, 983 F.2d at 1250-51; United States v. Goodapple, 958 F.2d 1402, 1409-10 (7th Cir.1992). Only prosecutor's comments that so infected ... the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974)); see United States v. Pirovolos, 844 F.2d 415, 426 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 857 (1986). Even in cases of extreme misconduct, a reviewing court examines the entire record to determine whether the petitioner received a fair trial. United States v. Mazzone, 782 F.2d 757, 763 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 838 (1986). 11 Applying the standards enunciated in Badger, we conclude that this statement was not so disparaging as to prejudice Holiday. Holiday's counsel objected to the prosecutor's remark and the trial court immediately sustained the objection. The court instructed the jury that opening statements and closing arguments are not evidence. We have held that when a trial court promptly sustains an objection and instructs the jury as to what constitutes evidence, the defendant is not deprived of a fair trial. United States v. Jean, No. 93-1180, slip op. at 16 (7th Cir. June 2, 1994) (also pointing to the great weight of the evidence against the defendant); see United States v. Neely, 980 F.2d 1074 (7th Cir.1992) (the court presumes jury instructions are taken seriously). Further, as the district court observed, there was overwhelming evidence of Holiday's guilt. 3