In final argument, the DA argued that defense counsel and the defense expert in this rape case has “attacked” the victim in a previous, unrelated rape case, suggesting that counsel and the expert were willing to present whatever testimony necessary to avoid a conviction. The Court says that this was highly improper and “clearly” prosecutorial misconduct. The Court also found misconduct because the DA argued that the defense expert had been hired by defense counsel to make up a defense. They also find misconduct because the DA argued to the jury that there was something improper about defense counsel’s thorough cross-examination of the victim and that counsel was “taking advantage” of an “opportunity” to question her. Next, the Court finds misconduct because the DA insinuated in cross examination, and argued to the jury, that the defendant had been coached by defense counsel. The DA argued that the jury had the “right” to hold the defendant to account, by convicting him. Misconduct.
People v. Higgins; 2011 DJ DAR 697; DJ, 1/14/11; C/A 4th, Div. 1