closing argument prosecution

• Md. Court of Appeals Reinstates Murder Conviction

Maryland's high court on Tuesday sided with prosecutors who told a Charles County jury it should convict a man who allegedly killed someone in Waldorf and dumped the body in Washington because District of Columbia jurors would not return a guilty verdict if the case went before them. At issue before the Court of Appeals was the validity of the prosecution's closing argument in which they predicted to the jury in La Plata that acquitting Arthur Franklin White in the killing of Derrell Stephen Cooks would be followed by a not guilty verdict in Washington. White's defense attorney would convincingly argue that Cooks' killing occurred in Maryland, not in Washington, the prosecution said.

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• November 01, 2011

• State v. Robinson, (Ohio 2008)

Affirming murder conviction on grounds that: (1) predindictment delay did not cause appellant substantial actual prejudice; (2) appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) appellant's use of an expert in religious matters to testify about religious rituals and practices and their relationship to a crime scene did not violate appellant's right to a fair trial; (4) the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; (5) the prosecution's closing argument did not contain remarks that constituted prejudicial error; (6) the trial court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress his 2004 statements to police; and (7) defendant is not entitled to reversal based upon cumulative error.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Jury Convicts White in Howard Beach Hate Crime Beating

Whether or not [Glenn Moore Sr.] was the victim of a hate crime was at the core of the often hotly contested trial. [Nicholas Minucci]'s counsel, Albert Gaudelli, repeatedly stressed that the "N" word should be ignored and that it was not intended as a racial slur or epithet. "People use the word in different ways," he said during his closing argument. The prosecution insisted that when Minucci approached Moore 4It wasn't to invite him to a party." Prosecutor Michelle Goldstein kept picking up the bat to make a point, hitting it against the juror's box to approximate the sound it made when Minucci struck Moore. And she said that Minucci uttered the words, "You see what you get, nigger, for coming into our neighborhood? While Gaudelli did not disagree that his client had hit Moore, Gaud...

• New Pittsburgh Courier; City Edition
• August 10, 2009

• Defense Presses Trial Jury to Acquit Rajaratnam

NEW YORK (Reuters) - lawyer took his last shot at a trial to keep his client out of prison, blasting the credibility of key witnesses and telling jurors on Thursday [April 21] the government failed to prove the hedge fund manager broke insider-trading laws.. In his closing argument, defense lawyer John Dowd also fired back at the prosecution's contention that his client had corrupted his friends and colleagues, telling the jury that it was people who testified against thehedge fund founder who were corrupt or had lied.

• Reuters Hedgeworld
• April 22, 2011

• Judge Declares End to Hearing of Defense Witnesses in Saddam Trial

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The chief judge declared an end to hearing defense witnesses in Saddam Hussein's trial Tuesday and said the prosecution will present its closing argument next week. The declaration came despite complaints by the defense team that it has not had the freedom to properly present its case and that many of its motions were not ruled on by chief judge Raouf Abdel- Rahman in the nearly eight-month-old trial.

• Deseret News (Salt Lake City)
• June 13, 2006

• Columbus v. Aleshire, (Ohio 2010)

Judgments of conviction vacated and remanded where trial court improperly sentenced defendant for both OVI "per se" and OVI "impaired" violations. Trial court properly limited questioning where defendant's inquiries attempted to attack general reliability of breath testing device. Defendant's speculation regarding possibility of missing records, without a demonstration of prejudice, did not require State to make more than a generalized showing of substantial compliance as to ODH records retention requirement. Prosecution's comments during closing argument did not warrant mistrial. As a whole, jury instructions given without inclusion of phrase "at the time of operation" were not improper and did not prejudice defendant.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Minucci Guilty of Hate Crime

Whether or not [Glenn Moore, Sr.] was the victim of a hate crime was at the core of the often hotly contested trial. [Nicholas Minucci]'s counsel, Albert Gaudelli, repeatedly stressed that the "N" word should be ignored and that it was not intended as a racial slur or epithet. "People use the word in different ways," he said during his closing argument. "There was no intent of bias or prejudice. The prosecution is playing the Howard Beach race card." He was referring to the Howard Beach incident 20 years ago in which Michael Griffith, fleeing a mob of white youths, was hit by a motorist on the Beltway and killed. The prosecution insisted that when Minucti approached Moore "it wasn't to invite him to a party." Prosecutor Michelle Goldstein kept picking up the bat to make a point, hitting...

• New York Amsterdam News
• August 10, 2009

• State v. Watson, (Ohio 2009)

Pre-trial single photo identification procedure was not unconstitutional. Prosecution did not commit misconduct when during rebuttal closing argument it responded to an issue that the defense raised.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. (2011)

... The District Court rejected this argument forthe reasons that it had given in the summary ju... with Thompson's armed robbery prosecution failed to disclose thecrime lab report to Thomp... a Batson2 claim; crossing the line in closing argument; or eliciting hearsay that violates the C...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• State v. Thompson, (Ohio 2010)

PROSECUTOR – COUNSEL – CRIM. MISCELLANEOUS: The trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to comment in closing argument on the motives of its witnesses in testifying, and its representations did not improperly vouch for the credibility of the witnesses’ testimony: the jury had heard all the relevant testimony regarding the witnesses’ motives to testify, and it was supplied with ample information to make its own credibility assessments. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the state’s representations that its witnesses had no motive to lie: an objection would have been futile because the state’s comments were not improper. The defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not...

• Ohio Supreme Court