ILNews

3 things to know about the boundaries of closing arguments

August 28, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bell Gaerte 3 thingsTrial lawyers often sit silently at counsel table during closing argument. Criminal defense attorneys, in particular, fear they will alienate the jury by objecting during a critical stage of the trial or they fear their objection will highlight prejudicial evidence. Some criminal defense lawyers have simply figured that most comments are permissible anyway and, therefore, there is no real basis for an objection. After all, an appellate court once found no abuse of discretion after a prosecutor read a poem about a cockroach and analogized the cockroach to the defendant Bowles v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1150, 1154 (Ind. 2000).

However, the recent case of Ryan v. State reminded criminal defense lawyers that a prosecutor’s closing argument has firm boundaries. Ryan v. State, No. 49A02-1211-CR-932, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 364 (Ind. Ct. App. July 31, 2013). Ryan was on trial for two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, both Class C felonies. The facts center on a teacher’s alleged inappropriate relationship with his 14-year-old student. During closing argument, the prosecutor suggested that Ryan went to trial solely because he wanted to “get away” with his crime, that the defense attorney’s argument was an attempt to trick the jury, that the jury needed to send a message with their verdict, and that the alleged victim was telling the truth in her testimony. Despite the lack of an objection from trial counsel, the Court of Appeals ruled that the cumulative effect of the prosecutor’s argument rose to the level of fundamental error, reversed Ryan’s convictions and remanded his case for a new trial.

Here are three things a criminal lawyer should know about the limits of a prosecutor’s closing argument:

1. A prosecutor’s comments on the accused’s constitutional rights cross a boundary.

Ryan’s prosecutor argued that “I want to be really clear, we are here because everyone has the right to have a jury trial. We’re not here because he didn’t do it, we’re here because he wants to get away with it.” The appellate court noted that both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as Article 1, Section 13 of Indiana’s Constitution guarantee a defendant’s right to a jury trial and that this is a “…fundamental linchpin of our system of justice.” Id. at 8; citing Kellems v. State, 849 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2006). A prosecutor’s comment on that right makes its assertion costly, and also impermissibly implies that only guilty people exercise the jury trial right. Id. at 10. The appellate court found that such comments were not inferences from the evidence, but rather rose to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. Id. at 12.

2. A prosecutor’s request for the jury to send a message crosses a boundary.

In Ryan, the prosecutor argued that “…we keep hearing about this happening, whether it’s a teacher, or a coach, or a pastor, whoever. And we all want to be really angry and post online and have strong opinions about it. And we never think that we’ll be the ones that are here that get to stop it. And you actually do get to stop it … you are in an incredible position to stop it and to send the message that we’re not going to allow people to do this.”

The appellate court was careful to explain that a prosecutor could permissibly argue that “justice was served in this particular case.” Id. at 16. However, given Ryan’s prosecutor’s emphasis that the jury shouldn’t allow “people” to do this, the exhortation could be read to find Ryan guilty in order to stop others from committing sexual misconduct. Id. at 17. As a result, the comments were deemed improper and constituted misconduct.

3. You need to find a way to say “objection” during closing argument.

This lesson is an obvious one, but a reminder never hurts. Because Ryan failed to object to the prosecutor’s arguments, he was only able to prevail on appeal by utilizing the fundamental error doctrine. Fundamental error is “an extremely narrow exception” and a reversal on the grounds of fundamental error is rare. In order to preserve error for appellate review, a defendant usually must request the jury be admonished and if the admonishment is insufficient, move for a mistrial. Id. at 7-8.

In most instances, closing argument is the last time the jury hears from the attorneys prior to deliberations. And, of course, the prosecutor gets the last word. Ryan demonstrates that a defense lawyer can’t simply let improper arguments go to the jury. If counsel is uncomfortable objecting in front of the jury, he or she should consider approaching the bench during closing argument and making a record before the judge. Regardless of the attorney’s trial strategy, the attorney must find a way to preserve the record.•

__________

James J. Bell and K. Michael Gaerte are attorneys with Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. They assist lawyers and judges with professional liability and legal ethics issues. They also practice in criminal defense and are regular speakers on criminal defense and ethics topics. They can be reached via email at jbell@bgdlegal.com or mgaerte@bgdlegal.com. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT