Prosecutor’s Remarks on Defendant’s Silence Requires Reversal

Although the prosecutor never remarked that a defendant’s silence implied anything during trial, any reference to a defendant’s silence is enough to require reversal

State v. A. M., 2016 BL 429804, Conn., No. SC 19497, 12/23/16.

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that any comments made by the state during a trial that reference a defendant’s silence during the trial proceedings is sufficient to trigger a reversal. During the closing argument, the prosecutor mentioned twice that the defendant had a constitutional right to remain silent, but that the jury could judge his credibility through statements made before the trial. The court reasoned that any comment on the defendant’s silence, even referencing the right to remain silent, can improperly draw the jury’s attention to the defendant’s decision to not take the stand. Moreover, there was a state statute that expressly prohibited prosecutors from commenting on a defendant’s refusal to testify at trial.

The state defended the error by arguing that it was harmless. The court rejected the argument because the case hinged on the defendant’s credibility, which was implicitly called into question by the reference to his silence at trial.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/State_v_A_M_No_SC_19497_2016_BL_429804_Conn_Dec_23_2016_Court_Opi?1485364268

Misstatement of Essential Element for Crime Requires Murder Conviction Reversal

A murder conviction was reversed due to a prosecutor’s misstatement of law regarding an element of the crime that was central to the evidence presented at trial

United States v. Williams, 2016 BL 287661, D.C. Cir., No. 12-3029, 9/2/16.

   The D.C. Circuit found that a prosecutor’s misstatement of law was egregious enough to warrant a reversal of a murder conviction because it implicated the mens rea requirement of the crime. The court found that the prosecutor misstated the law which could have “led some jurors to believe they could not consider the victim’s consenting behavior,” even though the jury instructions were accurately presented. The court feared that the instructions, however, did not go far enough to cure the inaccurate closing argument by the prosecutor. The court emphasized that the intent statement made by the prosecutor was problematic because “it effectively forbids the jury from considering certain evidence, rather than merely telling the jury which elements it must find and how to weigh the evidence.”

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Williams_No_123029_Consolidated_with_133058_2016_?1474479965