Opinion ID: 1386491
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Three Instances of Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct Raised For the First Time on Appeal

Text: Davis raises three instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct to which his defense counsel did not object during the trial. First, Davis objects to statements in closing argument made regarding Ewing, one of the occupants of his car on August 24, 2005. Assistant United. States Attorney Plowell (Plowell) stated: She is also young, unsophisticated, notwithstanding her appearance. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, she is very easily confused. She was scared. She told you the defendant was giving her mean looks when she was testifying, the kind of thing that as adults we would likely ignore, but still the kind of thing that frightens a 16 year old, I submit to you. She didn't even know her own lawyer's last name. When the defense asked her if she knew Mr. Poston, she said, no. Because she clearly knows him, but she knows him as Bruce. Does that make her less worthy of belief, ladies and gentlemen? I submit to you, it doesn't. She was asked if she had a deal with the government, Initially she says, yeah, I have a deal. Later she clarified. Again, she was confused, she was mistaken. There was no deal. That was further confirmed by her attorney Bruce Poston, no deals. The defendant I expect will argue she is getting some sort of benefit for not being prosecuted because of her testimony, but, ladies and gentlemen, recall Mr. Poston. No deals were made. There were no promises. Why were there no deals and no promises, ladies and gentlemen? Because the credible evidence, I submit, pointed to the defendant. Does the confusion of a 16 year old make her less worthy of belief? Don't we all get confused some of the time? Of course, we do. We are people, we are not robots. Ranisha corrected her misstatements when she was given the opportunity to do so. Those are hallmarks of her credibility. J.A. at 816-17 (Trial Tr., Gov't Closing Arg. at 24:7-25:10). Second, Davis objects to Cook's statement during closing argument that Fortner and Gilreath are sworn dedicated public servants who serve our community every day and risk their lives every day to serve us. To have him come into this courtroom without a shred of evidence and suggest to you, to suggest to you that they lied, to suggest to you they fabricated evidence and to suggest to you that their work was shoddy is wholly unfounded and offensive, as I said. J.A. at 819 ( id. at 47:1-8). Finally, Davis objects to Cook's statements during closing argument regarding Ewing and Davis: Ladies and gentlemen, one of those two people, Ranisha or' Melvin Davis, one of those two is an immature adult, immature in an adult body who was being taken advantage of. The other one is a predator who was selling poison in our community. I want to remind you that it's your job to make credibility determinations. It is your job to determine who is telling the truth. J.A. at 821 ( id. at 52:6-42).