Opinion ID: 2203238
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Calling the Defendant an Executioner During the Closing Argument

Text: The defense objects to the prosecutor's closing argument where he said: As far as the crime itself, and we're back to the area of the shooting, both persons shot each other. You might recall the comment as we all got together two weeks ago about the defense attorney stating that Bruce Russell, the police officer, passed away. It should be clear from this trial the fact that Bruce Russell did not just pass away. It should be clear from the observations you've made, State's Exhibit 46B the pattern of the gunshots into the body of Bruce Russell, that he didn't just pass away. He was murdered. And as far as the pattern that you see into the body of Bruce Russell, the gunshots fired by this defendant, they're just as pinpoint and just as close to each other as if he had had a stake, an imaginary stake at the back of his back, and he was tied to the stake and executed. That's exactly what this defendant did; he executed Bruce Russell. He did it because he intended to do it. He intended to do it because he had a motive, and that motive was, again, he was an escaped federal prisoner. He had to get himself out of there. This is the only reference made by the prosecutor to the defendant being an executioner. In contrast, in Commonwealth v. Gilman, 470 Pa. 179, 368 A.2d 253 (1977), cited as a similar case by the defense, the prosecutor persisted in a long, vehement, shouting tirade where he called the defendant not only an executioner, but also a `cold-blooded killer,' `sly,' `calculating,' and `deceiving.' The conviction was reversed not just because the prosecutor called the defendant an executioner, but because the prosecutor continually exceeded the bounds of permissible argument. It was an egregious situation; this case is not. Thus, the trial court was well within its discretion not to order a new trial for prosecutorial misconduct during the closing argument.