Opinion ID: 3040111
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: “Representative of Satan” Comment

Text: Fahy alleges that the prosecutor improperly referred to Fahy as a “representative of Satan.” He raised this claim in PCRA #4, which was dismissed as untimely without a review of the merits. We review this claim de novo. In his closing argument, defense counsel suggested to the jury that whoever killed Nicky Caserta was “some representative of Lucifer or Satan,” a “reprobate” and a “profligate.” In response, the prosecutor used defense counsel’s own words to argue that the evidence demonstrated that Fahy committed the killing, and thus, Fahy was the “representative of Satan.” Specifically, at the start of her closing argument, the prosecutor stated: And if there is a reprobate, profligate, and a representative of Satan who committed this act, the evidence in this case indicates that the representative of Satan in this case is seated right over there. (Indicating to the Defendant.) And, it is the defendant in this case because all of the evidence in this case so indicates. 71 Fahy argues that the prosecutor’s response was “unmistakably a religious argument, which asserted that Mr. Fahy must be convicted and put to death because he was literally the devil.” We disagree. We do not condone the characterization of Fahy as demonic, nor consider it a proper form of argument. However, the objectionable content was invited by or was responsive to the closing summation of the defense. See Wainwright, 477 U.S. at 182. The Supreme Court in United States v. Young explained that the idea of “invited response” is used not to excuse improper comments, but to determine their effect on the trial as a whole. 470 U.S. 1, 12 (1985). Specifically, the Supreme Court has instructed that [i]nappropriate prosecutorial comments, standing alone, would not justify a reviewing court to reverse a criminal conviction obtained in an otherwise fair proceeding. Instead . . . the remarks must be examined within the context of the trial to determine whether the prosecutor’s behavior amounted to prejudicial error. In other words, the Court must consider the probable effect the prosecutor’s response would have on the jury’s ability to judge the evidence fairly. In this context, defense counsel’s conduct, as well as the nature of the prosecutor’s response, is relevant. Young, 470 U.S. at 11–12 (citing Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339 (1958)). 72 To put it another way, the fact that a prosecutor’s comment was invited may have a mitigating effect on the impact that comment might otherwise have on the jury. Here, it is not enough that the prosecutor’s comments were inadvisable or even objectionable. See id. Rather, the appropriate standard of review for such a habeas claim is “the narrow one of due process” to determine whether the prosecutor’s comments “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 642–43 (1974). In light of defense counsel’s closing comments, which first introduced the notion of Satan’s criminal responsibility into the proceedings, we are confident that the jury could not have believed that the prosecutor was arguing that Fahy was literally the devil—only that the evidence indicated that he committed the murder, and thus was the “representative of Satan” that defense counsel had initially referred to. Thus, we reject Fahy’s contention that this comment so tainted the trial that he was denied due process.