Opinion ID: 1399686
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Prosecutor's Allusion to Humpty-Dumpty

Text: Two Elk first contends that the prosecutor inappropriately appealed to the jurors' passion and sympathy with an allusion to a nursery rhyme: [Prosecutor]: ... All of the king's horses and all of the king's men, ladies and gentlemen, can't put A.R. back together again. MS. MINER [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I would object. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. MINER: Sympathy is not to play a part in this. THE COURT: Overruled. [Prosecutor]: You can't put A.R. back together again, but your verdict can hold the person responsible.... It is well-settled that prosecutorial appeals to the passion, prejudice, or sympathy of jurors during closing argument are improper. Eagle, 515 F.3d at 805 (citing Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236, 247, 63 S.Ct. 561, 87 L.Ed. 734 (1943)); see also United States v. Mullins, 446 F.3d 750, 759 (8th Cir.2006). In Eagle, the prosecution made similarly strong statements regarding the impact of a crime on an eight-year-old victim of sexual assault. See Eagle, 515 F.3d at 805. The Eagle court noted that the prosecutor's arguments were reasonable inferences from the evidence and did not find reversible error. Id. And we have held that prosecutors may use colorful and forceful language in their arguments to the jury. Mullins, 446 F.3d at 759 (quotation omitted). Here, the prosecutor did not stray from the evidence and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it. Id. (quotation omitted). Moreover, the allusion to Humpty-Dumpty was no more egregious than the Eagle prosecutor's remarks. The statement, therefore, was not improper. Even if were to conclude otherwise, the statement did not deprive Two Elk of a fair trial. The jury had already listened to three doctors describe the awful details of A.R.'s injuries. Furthermore, as to the second factor, the admitted evidence of Two Elk's guilt was quite strong. The third factor also militates against reversal. The jury was instructed that they were to perform [their] duty without bias or prejudice, because the law does not permit jurors to be governed by sympathy, and that [s]tatements, arguments, questions and comments by lawyers ... are not evidence. In sum, the statement did not deprive Two Elk of a fair trial.