holding prosecutor’s argument Glossip was “guilty of murder, regardless of his defense that he only acted after the fact in attempting to cover up the crime ... [was] properly based on the evidence adduced at trial”
How later courts described this case
- holding prosecutor’s argument Glossip was “guilty of murder, regardless of his defense that he only acted after the fact in attempting to cover up the crime ... [was] properly based on the evidence adduced at trial”
- explaining that aiding and abetting includes “advis[ing] or encourag[ing] the commission of the crime” (quoting Spears v. State, 900 P.2d 431, 438 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995))
- “Any misconduct that might have occurred did not affect the outcome of this case, so there can be no ineffective assistance of counsel.”
- rejecting ineffective assistance of counsel claim where underlying claim did not rise to the level of plain error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
A. JOHNSON, Judge,
Dissenting:
1 I dissent for the reasons well expressed in Judge Chapel's dissenting opinion.
T2 Providing visual aids for the jury is a common trial practice. Done right, it focuses the jurors' attention, enhances their understanding, and sharpens their memory. Done right, it is an important part of a fair and well run trial
T3 Here, in the image of an American courtroom plastered with poster-size trial notes taken by the prosecutor, we see the practice gone badly wrong.
1 4 The process allowed the prosecution, in effect, a continuous closing argument, and may well have violated the rule of sequestration of witnesses. This Court cannot judge the effect of the process on this defendant's right to a fair trial with any assurance because the trial court refused the defendant's request to have the posters and their placement in the courtroom made part of the appellate record. Under those cireum-stances, we should not assume this error was harmless.