Opinion ID: 1943879
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Objected-to Portion of Prosecutor's Closing Argument

Text: Defense counsel did object at trial to one statement in the prosecution's closing argument. While attempting to refute a portion of the ostensible defense theory, the prosecutor suggested in rebuttal that the only way one could believe that events transpired in the manner suggested by defense counsel would be if Simpson had been secretly released from custody, killed Wiseman soon thereafter, gave the murder weapon to the government so that it could be planted on appellant, and returned to jailnone of which was supported by any evidence. Defense counsel objected unsuccessfully to the prosecutor's suggestion that he himself was a link in the hypothetical chain of custody of the gun. We conclude that the prosecution was doing no more than responding to the defense theory of the casethat Simpson, rather than appellant, was the perpetrator of the triple murderin order to point out a logical weakness in that defense. Therefore, we hold that overruling the defense objection was not error. See Harris, supra, 602 A.2d at 165 (stating that prosecution may respond to defense counsel's closing suggestion that police were lying).