Opinion ID: 1521791
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury

Text: Consistent with his strategy throughout the entire trial, the prosecutor relied heavily on the inadmissible written statement in his closing argument. He reminded the jury that in order to return a verdict of guilty to second-degree murder, as opposed to voluntary manslaughter, it must find that Ruffin had acted with malice. Malice, he observed, doesn't necessarily mean that Antone Ruffin when he went into the apartment building had the intent to kill Clifford Wilson. It doesn't mean that he hated Clifford Wilson or that he felt hostility toward Clifford Wilson. It doesn't necessarily mean those things. But those things can come into play. (Emphasis added.) The prosecutor immediately thereafter discussed the government's burden to prove that Ruffin was not acting in the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation or excuse. [W]e know from Antone Ruffin's own statement, the prosecutor argued, what happened at the top of the stairs. We know that Antone Ruffin knocked Clifford Wilson on his back and we know what was described in his own statement, with a left-right combination, that he kicked him with a roundhouse kick and straight down stomps to the head. (Emphasis added.) Summing up his argument, the prosecutor urged the jury to return a verdict of second-degree murder rather than voluntary manslaughter: The reason that I would ask you to return second-degree murder rather than manslaughter is that Antone Ruffin has told the police in his statement that he did not like Clifford Wilson, that he didn't like him.... (Emphasis added.) Ruffin had time, the prosecutor pointed out, to cool down, because he had time to drive over to his sister's apartment after hearing about the rape incident and to ask her what had happened. Yet Antone Ruffin didn't like Cliff Wilson. Maybe he thought that this was a good excuse to get back at Cliff Wilson or whatever. ... That is why this is second-degree murder, ladies and gentlemen, and not manslaughter. (Emphasis added.) In response to the prosecutor's closing argument, which relied entirely upon the inadmissible written statement to supply the essential element of malice, Ruffin's defense counsel discussed [as he was compelled to] the written statement in his closing argument. He emphasized Ruffin's claim that he acted in self-defense  a claim immediately followed in the written statement by the words teaching him a lesson, you can't keep going round mistreating people and expecting nothing to happen.