Opinion ID: 2629972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prosecutorial Misconduct Comments on Discipline and a Free Society

Text: At the beginning of his argument to the jury, the prosecutor discussed the role of the jury in a democratic society. He asked the jury to understand the somewhat paradoxical interplay between the freedom that democracy promises and the discipline democracy requires of its citizens. In the context of these remarks, the prosecutor commented on the rule of law: [A]nybody who's lived a life . . . knows that in reality discipline is the cornerstone of freedom. And that's what we are doing here today, and that's why I'm bringing this up. The prosecutor pursued the theme that law and its enforcement constitute the [d]iscipline [that] is the cornerstone of freedom. He observed: I mean, if you don't have some kind of control, some type of law and order in your society, you have chaos, obviously. And the next step from chaos is anarchy. And you don't have to be a history major, you just need to read the newspaper once in a while and you can see what it's like in those Third World countries where there is no law and order, where there is no discipline. Do those people feel free because there's nobody looking over their shoulder or because there's no law? You don't even have to go that far. You can go right here in Sacramento in some of the neighborhoods where people were afraid to go out on their porch at night, [fearing] they might get involved in a drive-by shooting. Those people, what would they give for a little bit of discipline, a little bit of control? The prosecutor explained he was making these points because he understood that jury service makes uncomfortable demands upon citizens. In the prosecutor's words, [y]ou have gotten yourself into the duty that every citizen has, but every citizen wishes [he or she] could avoid. The prosecutor went on to acknowledge how difficult it is for most persons to impose discipline on others, but expressed the view that most individuals are willing to do so  as, for example, by firing an incompetent employee  because they realize it's essential to our society. Bringing the point closer to home, the prosecutor asked the members of the jury to shoulder the unenviable task of judging defendant just as they would shoulder the task of firing an incompetent employee. He went on to caution those quick to make decisions to be patient and open minded during deliberations, and urged those who had difficulty reaching a decision not to act simply on the basis of a reluctance to participate in imposing harsh sanctions on defendant. Defendant contends these remarks constituted an appeal to the passion and prejudice of the jury, because they focused on the chaos and danger that follow from the absence of law and order. Defendant alleges a violation of his right to trial by jury and to due process of law as guarantied by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. Defendant claims the prosecutor implicitly urged the jury to convict defendant in order to bring discipline and freedom to the community and to keep society free of crime. Considering the prosecutor's remarks in their context, as we must ( People v. Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 475, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373), the prosecutor's argument did not urge the members of the jury to act on the basis of their fear of chaos and crime in the community, but to act with an understanding of the importance of law in the abstract. The prosecutor acknowledged the onerous task faced by the jury in applying the law and in fulfilling its important function. Far from asking the jury to act on the basis of fear, the prosecutor urged the jurors to remain patient, open-minded, and unaffected by emotion during their deliberations. And far from asking the jury to disregard the evidence, the prosecutor asked the jury to sift through it with care. Although it is improper for a prosecutor to appeal to the passion or prejudice of the jury ( People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1195, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 105 P.3d 487), there is no indication that the prosecutor's temperate speech concerning the function of the jury and of the rule of law constituted such an appeal. Moreover, as respondent points out, defendant failed to object to the comments at the time of trial, an omission that ordinarily bars consideration of the claim on appeal. ( People v. Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 756, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2; People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 794, 276 Cal.Rptr. 827, 802 P.2d 330.) Defendant has not supplied any plausible basis for his contention that an objection and admonition could not have cured any harm that assertedly flowed from the prosecutor's remarks, despite his claim that the harm was done the moment the prosecutor committed the misconduct. [12]