Misconduct In Court Case Analysis

It is improper for an attorney to vouch for witnesses as it is considered “an invasion of the province of the jurors in determining what weight they should place upon a witness’s testimony.” Neville v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1252, 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012); Bean v. State, 15 N.E.3d 12, 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). It is misconduct for a prosecutor to request a jury to convict defendants for any reason other than their guilt. Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 671 (Ind. 2014). While a prosecutor may argue both law and facts, and propound inferences based on analysis of the evidence, the prosecutor still must confine closing argument to comments based only upon evidence in the record. Lambert v. State, 743 N.E.2d 719, 734 (Ind. 2001). A prosecutor may not engage
Stephens v. State, 10 N.E.3d 599, 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). For example, the court in Brummett held that the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument, that the state’s witnesses “do not lie,” and that the victim’s former boyfriend testified because “he had to do the right thing,” improperly vouched for their credibility, and thus amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. Brummett v. State, 10 N.E.3d 78, 86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). The prosecutor’s comments asserted person knowledge of the facts at issue, and suggested that the prosecutor knew the boyfriend was telling the truth. Id. at 86. Moreover, when the prosecutor stated that the jury should imagine their own children coming to the stand, the
As in Brummett, the prosecutor improperly appealed to the juror’s emotions when he asked them to imagine how they would feel if their own children, grandchildren, and family members became addicted to meth because of men like Mr. Dvorak. This conduct on the part of the prosecutor was especially damaging. The prosecutor instilled fear and anger in the jury, such that they would return a guilty verdict no matter what the evidence may have