Opinion

State v. Carpenter

  • 116 Ohio App. 3d 615
  • 688 N.E.2d 1090
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Dec 13, 1996
Status
Published
Author
Grady
On the bench
Young, Wolff, Grady
Cited by
115 cases
Authority
More cited than 43.7%

explaining that in reviewing remarks made by a prosecutor during summation, the closing argument must be reviewed in its entirety

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that in reviewing remarks made by a prosecutor during summation, the closing argument must be reviewed in its entirety
  • court of appeals is to "presume that a broad range of choices, perhaps even disastrous ones, are made on the basis of tactical decisions and do not constitute ineffective assistance"
  • criticizing prosecutorial remarks as "sophistry and pejorative ranting"

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Grady, Judge,

concurring.

I am in complete agreement with Judge Young’s resolution of the issues presented by the fourth and fifth assignments of error. A practice seems to have

*629

grown among some prosecutors, who believe that they have nothing to lose, of compelling a conviction by so vilifying an accused that a jury would not dare to acquit. Prosecutors should strictly avoid the practice, and defense counsel should be vigilant in discharging their duty to protect their clients from its effects. Both should be mindful of the admonition delivered to federal prosecutors by the United States Supreme Court in

Berger v. United States

(1935), 295 U.S. 78, 88 , 55 S.Ct. 629, 633 , 79 L.Ed. 1314 , 1321:

“The United States Attorney 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. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. 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.”

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.