Court Opinion

ID: 9491663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:19:58.067084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:52.298309
License: Public Domain

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge,
Concurring.
I believe the majority reaches the correct result, agree with its reasoning, and, so I concur in its judgment. I write separately only to add my thoughts to Section III, D of its opinion, and express my indignation with the prosecuting attorney’s misbehavior.
The concept of an accused’s right to remain silent, to be free from prosecutorial comment about that silence, and to be free from any adverse consequences from accepting this constitutional protection, is so fundamental in our jurisprudence, and is so well known among practitioners, that I cannot conceive of any alternative but that the prosecutor’s use of Hassine’s silence was both deliberate and calculated to invite the jury to draw an adverse inference from it. Moreover, I believe this deliberate violation of Mr. Hassine’s constitutional rights is egregious— indeed, it is outrageous. The prosecutor not only questioned Hassine about his silence, but continued to do so even after objections to the questions were sustained by the trial court. This arrogance towards the court’s *962ruling and the accused’s rights, is reprehensible.
Nonetheless, on this habeas corpus review, I cannot say that his behavior, although unprofessional, “so infected” the trial’s integrity, that it requires us to grant Hassine relief. Moreover, even though the prosecutor again made reference to Hassine’s silence in his closing argument, considering the entire record, I agree with the majority — we cannot say that his action constituted a “pattern” of misconduct. The prosecutor’s act was unfair, for which he deserves a stern rebuke. Has-sine, nonetheless, received a fair trial.
Hence, although the prosecutor’s behavior came very close to crossing the line of harm, and came even closer to that “unusual” ease in which relief could be granted regardless of harm, I agree with the majority that it did not.