Supreme Court Says Prosecutor Went Too Far In Criticizing Defense Strategy

, The Connecticut Law Tribune

   |3 Comments

On appeal, prosecutors argued that Pattis' closing argument invited Hodge's comments during her rebuttal. They added that even if the comments were improper, they were harmless error that should not affect the conviction. The prosecution further noted that Pattis never objected to Hodge's remarks.

Nevertheless, the justices sided with Maguire's appellate lawyer, Richard Emanuel, who argued that the remarks prevented his client from getting a fair shake with the jury.

"If the prosecutor had wished to focus the jury on weaknesses in the defendant's theory of defense, there were ample ways for her to do so that would not have involved belittling remarks or personal attacks on the credibility of the defendant and defense counsel," wrote Palmer.

Emanuel said he was pleased with the ruling.

"I think the Supreme Court opinion is a strong affirmation of the principal that prosecutors are prohibited from impugning the integrity and veracity of defense counsel and denigrating the defense theory of the case," he said. "My client and his family are very grateful that the court has reversed his convictions."•

What's being said

  • Re my previous statement, I SHOULD HAVE reviewed it before posting it! :/

  • I PERSONALLY KNOW of a defendant who Sharmese Hodge ALSO SLANDERED IN COURT (but in this case, it was during a pretrial hearing)...and just like the defense attorney listed above, the "Public PRETENDER" said NOTHING!!!!!

    DESPITE THE MANY INjustices happening to this particular defendant, NO ONE EVER ACKNOWLEDGES BEING ABLE TO HELP, AND SO NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN DONE (this system is MOST DEFINITELY SET UP TO ONLY SERVE "JUSTICE" TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO BUY IT)!!!!! >:P IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Noah Webster

    Strong affirmation of the PRINCIPLE

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202628073158

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.