Court Opinion

ID: 9529333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:49:52.615729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:44.534002
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McDADE, specially concurring: I concur in the result reached in this case. I write separately to state my objection to one part of the analysis of the issue of prosecutorial misconduct because I think it creates a distinctly false impression. The decision, tracking the argument of the appellate prosecutor, states: “The prosecutor’s rebuttal argument did not vouch for the credibility of the witness; rather, it was an invited comment based upon defense counsel’s attack on the witness’s credibility.” 355 Ill. App. 3d at 1096. In point of fact, the argument did vouch for the credibility of the witness — actually two witnesses. The prosecutor stated: “Look who we are talking about, a Baptist minister. Do you think a Baptist minister is going to come into court and lie? Mr. Palmer isn’t lying and neither is the police officer.” The State tries to justify these clearly improper comments by saying the defense “invited” them. There is nothing improper in defense counsel’s argument. He said: “Mr. Palmer, you know, I probably offended people by cross-examining him, but it just happens to be he’s a pastor. But I still have to cross-examine him. The thing that he did is not only did he testify *** he also kind of like added things *** [he] also said a lot more to you than he said to Officer O’Connor *** there is an inconsistency with what Officer O’Connor says and what the pastor says *** [s]o its [sic] up to you who you believe.” Defense counsel attacked the credibility of the witness by calling attention to discrepancies and inconsistencies in what the witness said in an earlier statement and his testimony at trial and told the jurors it was up to them to decide who to believe. What his argument “invited” was rebuttal in kind; rebuttal that the prosecutor did, in fact, offer when he said, immediately after the improper comments: “The fact that he didn’t tell the police officer something that day didn’t mean it didn’t happen. Think about it ladies and gentlemen. Gilbert Palmer is a minister, a religious man. He’s not a police officer. He’s just seen a crime occur. Don’t you think that that shocked and surprised him? It would shock and surprise anyone. When he’s talking to the police that day and they are interviewing him on the street, don’t you think it’s possible that he might have forgot [sic] to mention that besides the beating he saw her in the car, for instance? Just because someone didn’t tell it to the police that day doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.” The prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he vouched for the credibility of the witness (Mr. Palmer is not lying and neither is the police officer) and did so based on his status (Do you think a Baptist minister is going to come into court and lie?) It would be no less improper even if defense counsel had flatly stated that the witness was lying — which was not done. I am concurring because I think that, in context, the misconduct was probably lost in the ensuing appropriate argument and was, therefore, harmless. But misconduct it was.