Opinion ID: 864646
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defense Counsel Statements

Text: ¶46. Easter takes issue with two statements made by Attorney Parrish at trial. First, Easter alleges that during voir dire, Attorney Parrish instructed the prospective jury that it would require the jury to find some technicality to find Easter not guilty. This is not accurate. 24 Not taking the statement out of context, the record reflects that Attorney Parrish actually questioned the jury as follows: Parrish: Does everybody on the panel understand that everything you just heard right there wasn't evidence? The only evidence you're going to hear in this case, the only evidence that you could consider is the evidence that you hear from that witness standing (indicating); not what I say, not what Vel or Andy says. Does everybody understand that? (NO RESPONSE) Parrish: Does everybody understand that the State's burden is to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; and by that I mean, should they fail to prove one element even though you find the other ones, does everybody understand that even though that might be what we call a technicality, it would be your duty as a juror to come back with a not guilty verdict? Does anybody have a problem with technicalities in the law? (NO RESPONSE) Parrish: By your silence, I'm assuming that you understand that if one part doesn't get proven, then it's not guilty even thought you believe everything else? (NO RESPONSE) We find that the question taken as a whole and in the proper context did not instruct the jury that it would take a technicality to find Easter not guilty as claimed on appeal. Therefore, this statement did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. ¶47. Second, Easter alleges that Attorney Parrish lent credibility to the State's case by stating in his first sentence on opening statement that, Well, Mr. Davis pretty much laid out the facts as I understand them from discovery. Again, placing the statement back in the proper context of the complete opening statement, Attorney Parrish's clearly does not concede Easter's guilt. Attorney Parrish's opening statement emphasized that there were conflicts in the evidence and a lack of evidence that would create reasonable doubt. In order 25 to review the statement in the proper context, the record reflects that Attorney Parrish's complete opening statement was as follows: Well, Mr. Davis pretty much laid out the facts as I understand them from discovery. That still doesn't mean that they have proven anything yet. I anticipate when the evidence is done and the Judge instructs you on the law, he'll talk to you about reasonable doubt, and he's going to tell you that reasonable doubt can arise from lack of evidence. It can arise from a conflict of evidence. Now, like the Judge said, I can't predict what's going to happen in this case. We don't have depositions in criminal cases in Mississippi, so I don't know exactly how the testimony is going to be developed from the witness stand, but I anticipate there's going to be some conflict in the evidence; that one person's going to say, you know, it was black, and the other person is going to say that is was white. One person is going to say that is was one thing, and another person is going to say that's another thing. That's the conflict in the evidence, and that -- if you're looking for it and you see, it can give rise to reasonable doubt. Again, there's going to be, I believe, a lack of evidence. You're going to hear about this tape of this alleged sale, and we've listened to this tape today. It's about eight seconds long, and you're going to have the opportunity to hear it. What you're not going to hear is any conversation of saying, Here's $800; here's three-quarters of an ounce of cocaine. That's not going to happen. You're going to hear two voices for about eight seconds; one of them saying, Hey, how you doing? The other one saying, I'm good; how you doing? Okay. See you later. That's it. Now, the primary proof that the State's going to be using I anticipate is going to be the testimony of this Thompson boy. Okay? And I anticipate that his testimony is going to be developed perhaps on direct but for certain on cross-examination by me talking about how he got to where he was working as a snitch for the cops. And the fact of the matter is he's the drug dealer. Okay? He's the drug dealer. He got caught.... And he's going to testify about his illegal activities and how he got arrested; and in turn for getting a lenient sentence, he worked off -- okay -- he worked off his -- some of his punishment. And part of working that off was to make sure that this man (indicating) was charged with this crime. Now, like I said, I don't -- I can't anticipate everything that's going to happen, but I can tell you two things based upon trying cases for several years; that is, there's going to be conflict. There's no doubt about it. There's going to be a lack of evidence. The State's already admitted -- those surveillance agents, the guys that were surveilling him didn't see what happened. There's no video. There's no money. There's no fingerprints. What you've got is a 26 convicted felon and a drug agent who saw Mr. Easter for the first time that day, an unidentified black man; so we've already got at least one other suspect that was sitting in the truck. We don't know who that was. We don't even know that Baron Easter was there. He's just charged with being there. That's what I'm telling you, conflict and lack of evidence. And when it's over, there's reasonable doubt. And if there's reasonable doubt, by you oath, you must acquit. Thank you. Clearly, the opening statement focused on reasonable doubt and raised possible conflicts and questions in the evidence. Again, this Court finds that taking the statement in the proper context and reviewing the complete opening statement, the statement did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.