Court Opinion

ID: 9454011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:32:22.364185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:55.506772
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring) :
On the particular facts of this case, I do not believe the prosecutor’s remarks, although highly improper, were prejudicial enough to warrant reversal. I wish to make clear, however, that my affirmance is not grounded on the fact that appellant’s counsel failed to object to the remarks at trial. It would be ignoring the realities of criminal practice to place such a heavy emphasis on the adversary system.
In the typical criminal case, defendant is represented by a court-appointed lawyer who may have little criminal or even trial experience. Because of this inexperience, counsel will not always know when or how to object. It will frequently be up to the judge to ensure that errors are prevented or corrected. Accordingly, whenever counsel embarks on an impermissible argument, the judge should not hesitate to stop him. I would not speculate in the abstract as to whether there is a class of improper arguments which a judge must not interrupt.
If the trial judge fails to intervene, the appellate court must then review the *660error for itself.1 The crucial consideration on that review must be the overall impact of the error on the fairness of the trial, not counsel’s failure to object at trial.2

. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) has always permitted appellate review of plain errors not challenged below.

. It should be remembered that sometimes even experienced counsel will decide not to object to a seriously prejudicial statement for fear of emphasizing it to the jury.