prosecutor as well defense in Alabama

2000A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present [her] impression from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.'" 725 So.2d at 1031, quoting Manigan v. State, 402 So.2d 1063, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), cert. denied, 402 So.2d 1072 (Ala. 1981).

1999A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present [her] impression from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.' Manigan v. State, 402 So.2d 1063, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.), citations omitted, cert. denied, 402 So.2d 1072 (Ala. 1981). `A prosecutor may express her opinion concerning reasonable inferences, deductions, and conclusions to be drawn from the facts and evidence, as long as she does not express an opinion as to the defendant's guilt.

2014This Court has stated: " ' "While it is never proper for the prosecutor to express his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused during closing argument, reversible error does not occur when the argument complained of constitutes mere expression of opinion concerning inferences, deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence." ' " Allen v. State , 659 So.2d 135 , 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Sams v. State , 506 So.2d 1027 , 1029 (Ala.1986) ). " ' "A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence," and "[h]e may argue every legitimat

2010My vote was cast a long time ago when I charged him with what he did.” (R. 970-71) (emphasis added). “ ‘While it is never proper for the prosecutor to express his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused during closing argument, reversible error does not occur when the argument complained of constitutes mere expression of opinion concerning inferences, deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence.’ ” Allen v. State, 659 So.2d 135, 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Sams v. State, 506 So.2d 1027, 1029 (Ala.1986)). “ ‘A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his

2014This Court has stated: " ' "While it is never proper for the prosecutor to express his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused during closing argument, reversible error does not occur when the argument complained of constitutes mere expression of opinion concerning inferences, deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence." ' " Allen v. State , 659 So.2d 135 , 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Sams v. State , 506 So.2d 1027 , 1029 (Ala.1986) ). " ' "A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence," and "[h]e may argue every legitimat

2010My vote was cast a long time ago when I charged him with what he did.” (R. 970-71) (emphasis added). “ ‘While it is never proper for the prosecutor to express his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused during closing argument, reversible error does not occur when the argument complained of constitutes mere expression of opinion concerning inferences, deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence.’ ” Allen v. State, 659 So.2d 135, 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Sams v. State, 506 So.2d 1027, 1029 (Ala.1986)). “ ‘A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his

2014This Court has stated: " ' "While it is never proper for the prosecutor to express his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused during closing argument, reversible error does not occur when the argument complained of constitutes mere expression of opinion concerning inferences, deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence." ' " Allen v. State , 659 So.2d 135 , 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Sams v. State , 506 So.2d 1027 , 1029 (Ala.1986) ). " ' "A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence," and "[h]e may argue every legitimat

2010My vote was cast a long time ago when I charged him with what he did.” (R. 970-71) (emphasis added). “ ‘While it is never proper for the prosecutor to express his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused during closing argument, reversible error does not occur when the argument complained of constitutes mere expression of opinion concerning inferences, deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence.’ ” Allen v. State, 659 So.2d 135, 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Sams v. State, 506 So.2d 1027, 1029 (Ala.1986)). “ ‘A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his

2014This Court has stated: " ' "While it is never proper for the prosecutor to express his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused during closing argument, reversible error does not occur when the argument complained of constitutes mere expression of opinion concerning inferences, deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence." ' " Allen v. State , 659 So.2d 135 , 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Sams v. State , 506 So.2d 1027 , 1029 (Ala.1986) ). " ' "A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence," and "[h]e may argue every legitimat

2010My vote was cast a long time ago when I charged him with what he did.” (R. 970-71) (emphasis added). “ ‘While it is never proper for the prosecutor to express his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused during closing argument, reversible error does not occur when the argument complained of constitutes mere expression of opinion concerning inferences, deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence.’ ” Allen v. State, 659 So.2d 135, 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Sams v. State, 506 So.2d 1027, 1029 (Ala.1986)). “ ‘A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his

1994We find no plain error and find that the appellant has either exaggerated or mischaracterized the prosecutor's comments. "[T]he prosecutor was not injecting his own knowledge or experience into the argument, nor was he indicating a personal belief in the veracity of the witnesses' statements. `During closing argument, the prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.' Milton v. State, 417 So.2d 620 (Ala.Crim.App.1982)." Ex parte Waldrop, 459 So.2d 959, 961 (Ala. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U

1986Here, as in Ex parte Waldrop , 459 So.2d 959 , 961 (Ala. 1984) cert. denied, Waldrop v. Alabama , 471 U.S. 1030 , 105 S.Ct. 2050 , 85 L.Ed.2d 323 (1985), "the prosecutor was not injecting his own knowledge or experience into the argument, nor was he indicating a personal belief in the veracity of the witnesses' statements. 'During closing argument, the prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.' Milton v. State , 417 So.2d 620 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982)." In Waldrop , 459 So.2d at 960 , the

2013P, “ ‘During, closing argument, the prosecutor, as well as defense counsel, has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference,’” Reeves v. State, 807 So.2d 18, 45 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (quoting Rutledge v. State, 523 So.2d 1087, 1100 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), rev’d on other grounds, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala.1988), abrogated by Bethea v, Springhill Mem’l Hosp., 833 So.2d 1 (Ala.2002)). “ ‘ “A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence,” and “[h]e may argue every legitimate inference from the

2010Did she feel it?” (R. 1168-70.) “ ‘During closing argument, the prosecutor, as well as defense counsel, has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.’” Reeves v. State, 807 So.2d 18, 45 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (quoting Rutledge v. State, 523 So.2d 1087, 1100 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), rev’d on other grounds, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala.1988), abrogated by Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hasp., 833 So.2d 1 (Ala.2002)). “ ‘ “A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence,” and “[h]e may argue every

2013P, “ ‘During, closing argument, the prosecutor, as well as defense counsel, has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference,’” Reeves v. State, 807 So.2d 18, 45 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (quoting Rutledge v. State, 523 So.2d 1087, 1100 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), rev’d on other grounds, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala.1988), abrogated by Bethea v, Springhill Mem’l Hosp., 833 So.2d 1 (Ala.2002)). “ ‘ “A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence,” and “[h]e may argue every legitimate inference from the

2010Did she feel it?” (R. 1168-70.) “ ‘During closing argument, the prosecutor, as well as defense counsel, has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.’” Reeves v. State, 807 So.2d 18, 45 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (quoting Rutledge v. State, 523 So.2d 1087, 1100 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), rev’d on other grounds, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala.1988), abrogated by Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hasp., 833 So.2d 1 (Ala.2002)). “ ‘ “A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence,” and “[h]e may argue every

1994We find no plain error and find that the appellant has either exaggerated or mischaracterized the prosecutor's comments. "[T]he prosecutor was not injecting his own knowledge or experience into the argument, nor was he indicating a personal belief in the veracity of the witnesses' statements. `During closing argument, the prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.' Milton v. State, 417 So.2d 620 (Ala.Crim.App.1982)." Ex parte Waldrop, 459 So.2d 959, 961 (Ala. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U

1986Here, as in Ex parte Waldrop , 459 So.2d 959 , 961 (Ala. 1984) cert. denied, Waldrop v. Alabama , 471 U.S. 1030 , 105 S.Ct. 2050 , 85 L.Ed.2d 323 (1985), "the prosecutor was not injecting his own knowledge or experience into the argument, nor was he indicating a personal belief in the veracity of the witnesses' statements. 'During closing argument, the prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.' Milton v. State , 417 So.2d 620 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982)." In Waldrop , 459 So.2d at 960 , the

2014Furthermore, in McGowan v. State , 990 So.2d 931 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), this Court stated: " ' " '[T]he rule on which the weight of authority is in agreement is that it is improper for the prosecuting attorney ... to express his personal opinion or belief in guilt of accused [so] as to permit an inference by the jury that such opinion or belief is based on reasons or information outside the evidence, but that it is not improper for him to argue or to express his opinion that accused is guilty, where he states, or it is apparent, that such opinion is based solely on the evidence.' *708 23A C.J.S.

2014This Court has stated: " ' "While it is never proper for the prosecutor to express his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused during closing argument, reversible error does not occur when the argument complained of constitutes mere expression of opinion concerning inferences, deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence." ' " Allen v. State , 659 So.2d 135 , 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Sams v. State , 506 So.2d 1027 , 1029 (Ala.1986) ). " ' "A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence," and "[h]e may argue every legitimat

2014This Court has stated: " ' "While it is never proper for the prosecutor to express his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused during closing argument, reversible error does not occur when the argument complained of constitutes mere expression of opinion concerning inferences, deductions and conclusions drawn from the evidence." ' " Allen v. State , 659 So.2d 135 , 139 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Sams v. State , 506 So.2d 1027 , 1029 (Ala.1986) ). " ' "A prosecutor as well as defense counsel has a right to present his impressions from the evidence," and "[h]e may argue every legitimat

2013Further, as discussed in Section V of this opinion, “ ‘[w]hile this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.’ Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106,] at 1111 [(Ala.1985)]_ ‘This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of its suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly harmful.’ Johnson v. Wainwright, 778 F.2d 623 , 629 n. 6 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S.

2013Further, as discussed in Section V of this opinion, “ ‘[w]hile this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.’ Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106,] at 1111 [(Ala.1985)]_ ‘This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of its suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly harmful.’ Johnson v. Wainwright, 778 F.2d 623 , 629 n. 6 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S.

2013Further, as discussed in Section V of this opinion, “ ‘[w]hile this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.’ Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106,] at 1111 [(Ala.1985)]_ ‘This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of its suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly harmful.’ Johnson v. Wainwright, 778 F.2d 623 , 629 n. 6 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S.

2013Further, as discussed in Section V of this opinion, “ ‘[w]hile this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.’ Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106,] at 1111 [(Ala.1985)]_ ‘This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of its suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly harmful.’ Johnson v. Wainwright, 778 F.2d 623 , 629 n. 6 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S.

2013Further, as discussed in Section V of this opinion, “ ‘[w]hile this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.’ Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d [1106,] at 1111 [(Ala.1985)]_ ‘This court has concluded that the failure to object to improper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of its suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly harmful.’ Johnson v. Wainwright, 778 F.2d 623 , 629 n. 6 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S.