Opinion ID: 866154
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Prosecutor Commented on the Effect

Text: of Heroin on Jurors’ Families. Next, Tucker argues that the prosecutor attempted to emphasize to the jury the devastating effects of heroin by improperly referencing experiences shared by individual jurors with the court during voir dire. While it is impossible to expect a criminal trial to proceed devoid of any emotion, we do prohibit arguments that are so inflammatory and prejudicial that they deprive the defendant of a fair trial. United States v. Zylstra, 713 F.2d 1332, 1339 (7th Cir. 1983). We have held that it would be improper for the prosecutor to refer to a juror’s family or children specifically, United States v. Zanin, 831 F.2d 740, 743 (7th Cir. 1987), but, a prosecutor can impress upon the jury the seriousness of the charges and comment on the ongoing drug problem in American culture. Zylstra, 713 F.2d at 1340. In this case, during his opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury, “[H]eroin is a highly addictive drug . . . and some of the people told us during jury selection, it’s a drug that can kill you. It can kill you the No. 12-1281 17 first time you use it.” Then during his closing argument, the prosecutor said, “[It] would be easy for you to look at Mr. Tucker and say okay, well, this is a case about heroin distribution in the central city. What does it have to do with me? But don’t kid yourself, drugs are destroying this community.” Tucker argues the prosecutor’s comments were improper because he referenced experiences shared by jurors during jury selection. On review we focus on the “probable effect the prosecutor’s [remark] would have on the jury’s ability to judge the evidence fairly.” Zanin, 831 F.2d at 742 (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1045, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)). Here, the prosecutor’s comments centered around the seriousness of heroin use generally, not the effect of the drug on specific juror’s family or friends. Therefore, we find the prosecutor’s statements were not improper and would not have interfered with the jury’s ability to fairly judge the evidence before it.