At page 1096 Standards for government counsel conduct and dignity13 citing cases“a criminal trial is not a minuet.”
- Al Odah v. United States, 606 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D.D.C. 2009).publishedORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S FEBRUARY 12, 2009 ORDER COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge. [TJhere are standards which a Government counsel should meet to uphold the dignity of the Government ... t…
- Al Odah v. USA, No. 2002-0828 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 2009).publishedORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S FEBRUARY 12, 2009 ORDER (April 6, 2009) [T]here are standards which a Government counsel should meet to uphold the dignity of the Government . . . their conduct [must] re…
- Brown v. United States, 766 A.2d 530 (D.C. 2001).publishedD.C. 188, 189, 413 F.2d 1095, 1096 (1969).
- Dixon v. United States, 565 A.2d 72 (D.C. 1989).published As the government frequently reminds us, see Sellars v. United States, 401 A.2d 974, 977 (D.C.1979), “a criminal trial is not a minuet.” Taylor v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 189, 413 F.2d 1095, 1096 (1969) (Burger, J.).
- Turner v. United States, 443 A.2d 542 (D.C. 1982).publishedWe have stated that “prosecutors should adhere to standards which ‘uphold the dignity of the Government,’ ” Sellars v. United States, D.C.App., 401 A.2d 974, 977-78 (1979), quoting Taylor v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 189, 413 F…
- Miller v. United States, 444 A.2d 13 (D.C. 1982).publishedThe government admits in its brief that the evidence of appellant’s guilt was not overwhelming. 8 .Taylor v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 189, 413 F.2d 1095, 1096 (1969), citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 , 55 S.Ct.…
- Sellars v. United States, 401 A.2d 974 (D.C. 1979).publishedThe government (as it generally does in cases of alleged prosecutorial excess) notes that "a criminal trial is not a minuet." Taylor v. United States, supra, 134 U.S.App.D.C. at 189, 413 F.2d at 1096 .
- United States v. Anthony A. Freeman, 514 F.2d 1314 (D.C. Cir. 1975).published See Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 , 55 S.Ct. 629 , 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1934); Taylor v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 413 F.2d 1095, 1096 (1969).
- United States v. Felix Davila Williams, 496 F.2d 378 (1st Cir. 1974).publishedTaylor v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 413 F.2d 1095, 1096 (1969).
- United States v. William L. Deloach, Sr., 504 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1974).publishedThe prosecutor stated that Harper had been “shot down like a dog in the street,” a phrase condemned five years ago by Judge (now Chief Justice) Burger as being inconsistent with “the dignity of the Government.” Taylor v. United States, 134…
Show 3 more citing cases
- United States v. Wilbur Jones, 482 F.2d 747 (D.C. Cir. 1973).published Perhaps counsel for the Government should be reminded of this court’s statement in Taylor v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 189, 413 F.2d 1095, 1096 (1969): “We need not characterize the prosecution argument here as foul to conclude…
- United States v. Roy K. Jones, 433 F.2d 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1970).publishedTaylor v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , at 189, 413 F.2d 1095, at 1096 (1969). 8 .
- United States v. Abell Holiday, 482 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1973).publishedSee Taylor v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 188 , 189, 413 F.2d 1095, 1096 (1969).
134 U.S. App. D.C. at 189 cited at this page1 citing case
- Sellars v. United States, 401 A.2d 974 (D.C. 1979).publishedThe government (as it generally does in cases of alleged prosecutorial excess) notes that "a criminal trial is not a minuet." Taylor v. United States, supra, 134 U.S.App.D.C. at 189, 413 F.2d at 1096 .
Other citing cases
- United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2011).published
- White v. State, 726 A.2d 858 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999).published
- People v. Hernandez, 829 P.2d 394 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).published
- United States v. William Junior Rhoden, 453 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1972).published
- State v. Polsky, 482 P.2d 257 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971).published
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
This is an appeal from convictions for first degree murder and carrying a deadly weapon.
Appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict on the murder count is without merit. Although the Government’s case consisted largely of evidence of circumstances, it is clear that reasonable jurors could have fairly concluded Appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Objection was made to the closing argument of the prosecutor which stated “He waited for her there with his gun, and shot her, stabbed her and kicked her — shot her down just like a dog.” Viewing the record as a whole, as we must, we are unable to conclude these remarks warrant reversal. The test of reversal is not the only test of appropriate conduct. The prosecutor may “strike hard blows,” but not “foul.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1934). We need not characterize the prosecution argument here as foul to conclude that the prosecution has an obligation to set an example of professional conduct. The Government may prosecute vigorously, zealously with hard blows if the facts warrant, for a criminal trial is not a minuet. Nevertheless, there are standards which a Government counsel should meet to uphold the dignity of the Government. The language of the prosecutor here was hardly in keeping with what the Courts and the public expect of its representatives. We take this occasion to remind the bar, prosecutors and defense counsel alike, that we expect — indeed insist — that their conduct reflect that they are officers of the court as well as advocates for a cause.
Perhaps under the pressures of inordinately heavy criminal calendars which place all the participants under strain we have all become too tolerant of violations of canons and customs; hence our observations are not intended to condemn but to guide future conduct.
Affirmed.