The prosecutor stated that she had so instructed some of the
officers, but was not sure if all of the officers had been so instructed. The judge
then stated, “I don’t want anything, any testimony about high crime area, any
previous contact with anybody.” The prosecutor replied, “Surely, Judge.
Incredibly, minutes later, one of the members of the police surveillance team
gratuitously interjected the exact type of testimony that the motion in limine had
tried to prevent.
The prosecutor admitted that she had not
complied with the court’s order. When asked why she had disobeyed the court’s
order, the prosecutor responded, “Judge, I mean, I absolutely -- the only -- you are
Talk about oral advocacy.
Anyway, this ASA was not done, because she then resorted to imaging facts that she then argued in opening and closing argument. This is generally considered a "no-no" except in Texas and certain parts of Louisiana:
First, the prosecutor told the jury in opening statement that when police
officers went into the house that had been under surveillance, they found
Fleurimond attempting to flush drugs down the toilet. The only place the
defendant was flushing drugs down any toilet was in the prosecutor’s imagination
because, during trial, the State presented no such evidence. During closing
argument, the prosecutor told the jury:
Now, this is all being radioed. This is not happening in
split seconds. It’s happening quickly, but time is elapsing.
And then the police go in and they find Mr. Fleurimond
in the bathroom flushing the drugs down the toilet.
Not surprisingly, the defendant will be receiving a new trial.
SR v. State. A good case explaining the standard for a judgment of acquittal in self defense cases. Basically, when the defense proffers a self defense claim, the state's proof must rebut beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's claim that s/he acted in self defense. If you have a self defense case going, read this one and print it out for the file.
State v. Williams. Judge Rothenberg reversed Judge Alan Schwartz who was sitting as a trial judge and who granted an unsworn "sworn" motion to dismiss in which is was alleged that the item used to hit the victim ( a firearm) was not a deadly weapon. Note to Judge Schwartz: sworn motions must be sworn to and firearms are, um...deadly weapons pretty much by definition.