United States v. Clinton L. Phillips, 476 F.2d 538 (D.C. Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Clinton L. Phillips, 476 F.2d 538 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Raphyal Crawford, 323 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2003)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 538 Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, Richard Speck, Jack Ruby2 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • United States v. Raphyal Crawford, 323 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2003).published 2 cites
    (Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, Richard Speck, Jack Ruby)
  • State v. Lee, 480 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).published
    United States v. Phillips, 476 F.2d 538, 538-39 (D.C.Cir.1973); see also United States v. Thiel, 619 F.2d 778, 782 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 856 , 101 S.Ct. 152 , 66 L.Ed.2d 70 (1980).
At page 539 passion and prejudice. Although the prosecutor ‘may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from…1 citing caseopening of page *539 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Clinton L. PHILLIPS, Appellant
72-1859.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
May 16, 1973.
Published opinion
476 F.2d 538
1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 9930
Dorothy R. Burakreis*, with whom Heathcote W. Wales, Sherman L. Cohn and Linda Blumenfeld * (all appointed by this court), were on the brief, for appellant., Richard S. Vermeire, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Harold H. Titus, Jr., U. S. Atty., and John A. Terry and Kenneth Michael Robinson, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Wright, Tamm, Davies.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The appellant, charged in a two-count indictment with second degree murder, a violation of 22 D.C.Code § 2403 (1967), and with carrying a dangerous weapon without a license, a violation of 22 D.C. Code § 3204 (1967), appeals from his conviction of the latter crime.

We reach only appellant’s contention that the prosecutor’s improper closing and rebuttal arguments were so highly prejudicial as to require reversal.

On no fewer than three occasions, once during closing and twice during rebuttal, the prosecutor sought to draw an analogy between the crime charged against appellant and those involving Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, [Richard] Speck and Jack Ruby.

“While such an argument is always to be condemned as ‘an appeal wholly irrelevant to any facts or issues in the case,’ Viereck v. United States, 318 U. S. 236, 247, 63 S.Ct. 561, 566, 87 L. Ed. 734 (1943), and as a dereliction of the prosecutor’s high duty to prosecute fairly, see Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935), in the context of current events, raising the spectre of [heinous crimes] . . . was an especially flagrant and reprehensible appeal to[*539] passion and prejudice. Although the prosecutor ‘may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.’ Berger v. United States, supra, 295 U.S. at 88, 55 S.Ct. at 633; Viereck v. United States, supra, 318 U.S. at 248, 63 S.Ct. at 567.” Brown v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 224, 370 F.2d 242, 246 (1966).

Reversed.