stating that the prosecutor improperly directed the jury, in its deliberations, to consider the defendant’s demeanor during trial
How later courts described this case
- stating that the prosecutor improperly directed the jury, in its deliberations, to consider the defendant’s demeanor during trial
- finding error in a prosecutor's comment that defendant found the trial humorous and in prosecution's instruction to the jury, made with the district court's approval, that it could "definitely consider [the defendant's] demeanor in [its] deliberations"
- reversing conviction on direct appeal based on 28 prosecutor’s comment that the jury could use non-testifying defendant’s courtroom demeanor as 1 evidence of guilt
- rejecting the idea that the defendant's "courtroom behavior off the witness stand is in any sense legally relevant to the question of his guilt or innocence"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Parks v. United States, 1982 D.C. App. LEXIS 436 (1982)
160 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 65, 489 F.2d 1181, 1189 (1973) (same), that rule is inapplicable in this case, since a defendant is the seeking party.
Distinguished by United States v. Garnell S. Robinson, 530 F.2d 1076 (1976)
160 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 489 F.2d 1181 (1973) is inapposite.
The opinion
MacKINNON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I see no privilege in the report of an investigator for the defense to the extent that it contains statements of witnesses (not the defendant). I accordingly believe that the court properly ordered it to be produced. Investigative reports of the Government are required to be turned over to the defense when they contain facts contrary to those testified in court and I would apply the same standard to investigators for the defense. Since I find no error in the trial I would accordingly affirm the judgment of conviction.