Court Opinion

ID: 9821685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 08:21:30.989083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:55.059262
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 43] In view of misconduct by the prosecutor, rising to the level of denying Ryan Anderson a fair trial, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
[¶ 44] Anderson had a constitutional right to remain silent after his arrest. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Yet the prosecutor elicited police testimony of Anderson’s -. exercise of his right. It is improper to comment on a defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right to remain silent. See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); United States v. Shannon, 766 F.3d 346 (3d Cir.2014); United States v. Ramirez-Estrada, 749 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir.2014); United States v. Gentry, 555 F.3d 659 (8th Cir.2009).
[¶45] .Anderson had a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel, and to the lawyer-client privilege in his preparation. U.S. Const. 5th Amend. Yet the prosecutor elicited testimony related to his assistance of counsel and preparing his testimony.
[¶ 46] Police reports were inadmissible, yet the prosecutor ■ put the inadmissible evidence before the jury through improper questioning, and further extracted testimony from the defendant to put inadmissible evidence before the jury. Glover v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. Cty. of Clark, 125 Nev. 691, 220 P.3d 684, 692 (2009) (“improper advocacy that places prejudicial and inadmissible evidence before the jury can create an unacceptable risk of biased jury”);- ABA Criminal Justice Section Standards 3-5.6(b) (“A prosecutor ‘ should not knowingly and for the purpose of bringing inadmissible matter to the attention of the judge or jury offer inadmissible evidence, ask legally objectionable questions, or make other impermissible comments dr arguments in the presence of the judge or jury”). In addition, the defendant’s testimony was not a competent way to establish the content of the documents had they been admissible. Further, the- questioning interfered with the right of a defendant to prepare his defense.
Q. Did you' have an opportunity, while this case has been pending, to review the police reports, the discovery ' from this case?
A. One time when it was originally available, just that one time.
Q, So your answer is yes?
A, Yes.
Q, And in the initial witness statements given to law enforcement, no one mentions that .you were choked. It’s not until the,. depositions. occurred .three months later; is that correct?
. A. 1 do not recall what’s in the original police reports.
Q. And in the original police reports, there’s no mention of anyone taunting you or doing anything to make you come out of your room; is that correct?
[¶ 47] Prosecutors must refrain from using methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction. United States v. *510Young, 470 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). I acknowledge that an ovér-zealous prosecutor may have succeeded in impermissibly prejudicing the jury, when a more attentive defense .counsel would have moved for a mistrial or otherwise curtailed the prosecutorial misconduct, but this case rises to the level of plain error affecting substantial .rights. See State v. Patterson, 2014 ND 193, ¶ 4, 855 N.W.2d 113 (“When analyzing claims of .obvious error, this Court may ‘notice a claimed err,or that was not brought to the attention of a trial court if there was (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.’ ” (quoting State v. Clark, 2004 ND 85, ¶ 6, 678 N.W.2d 765)).
[¶48] Prosecutors have a duty to do justice. N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 3.8 Cmt. 1 (“A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carnes with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice .... ”). “The [prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.... He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods- calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). Justice was not done here.
[¶ 49] DALE V. SANDSTROM