Restraining adversarial excess in closing argument

Columbia Law Review

Volumn 96, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 1299-

  Nidiry, Rosemary ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042038147     PISSN: 00101958     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1123406     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. See, e.g., Sheldon Krantz & Michael Ross, A Decade of Litigating Dangerously: Time to Replace Rhetoric with Reason, 9 Crim. Just. 36 (1994) (citing "disturbing level of hostility and mistrust between criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors," and attributing it in part to pressure placed on prosecutors by rising popular concern about crime, and on defense attorneys by mandatory minimum sentences and rigid sentencing guidelines).
2. See Model Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 7 (1981).
3. See Marvin E. Frankel, Partisan Justice 9, 87-95 (1980).
4. See J. Alexander Tanford, Closing Argument Procedure, 10 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 47, 48 (1986).
5. Bradley R. Johnson, Closing Argument: Boom to the Skilled, Bust to the Overzealous, 69 Fla. B. J. 12, 12 (1995).
6. See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice Standards 3-5.8 to 3-5.9 (3d ed. 1992) (Prosecution Function Standards); id. Standards 4-7.8 to 4-7.9 (Defense Function Standards).
7. The inadequacy of these standards is evident in part from the frequent occurrence of inappropriate adversarial conduct. For cases discussing overzealous adversarial conduct, see generally, United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985); Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339 (1958); Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (1952); Vierick v. United States, 318 U.S. 236 (1943); Berger v. United States, 292 U.S. 78 (1935). While this is also a problem at the state court level, see, e.g., Guthrie v. State, 616 So. 2d 914, 931 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993), People v. Gutierrez, 605 N.E. 2d 1110, 1116 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (discussing non-harmless error in counsel's conduct), State v. Salitros, 499 N.W. 2d 815 (Minn. 1993), Lone Star Ford, Inc. v. Carter, 848 S.W. 2d 850 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993), this Note will focus on the problem at the federal level. This analysis is potentially appropriate for state courts as well.
8. See, e.g., Bruce J. Berger, The Prosecution's Rebuttal Argument: The Proper Limits of the Doctrine of 'Invited Response,' 19 Crim. L. Bull. 5 (1983); David Crump, The Functions and Limits of Prosecution Jury Argument, 28 Sw. L.J. 505 (1974); J. Allison DeFour, Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument, 7 Nova L. Rev. 443, 448 (1983); Richard G. Singer, Forensic Misconduct by Federal Prosecutors - and How It Grew, 20 Ala. L. Rev. 227 (1968);
9. See, e.g., Bruce J. Berger, The Prosecution's Rebuttal Argument: The Proper Limits of the Doctrine of 'Invited Response,' 19 Crim. L. Bull. 5 (1983); David Crump, The Functions and Limits of Prosecution Jury Argument, 28 Sw. L.J. 505 (1974); J. Allison DeFour, Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument, 7 Nova L. Rev. 443, 448 (1983); Richard G. Singer, Forensic Misconduct by Federal Prosecutors - and How It Grew, 20 Ala. L. Rev. 227 (1968);
10. See, e.g., Bruce J. Berger, The Prosecution's Rebuttal Argument: The Proper Limits of the Doctrine of 'Invited Response,' 19 Crim. L. Bull. 5 (1983); David Crump, The Functions and Limits of Prosecution Jury Argument, 28 Sw. L.J. 505 (1974); J. Allison DeFour, Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument, 7 Nova L. Rev. 443, 448 (1983); Richard G. Singer, Forensic Misconduct by Federal Prosecutors - and How It Grew, 20 Ala. L. Rev. 227 (1968);
11. See, e.g., Bruce J. Berger, The Prosecution's Rebuttal Argument: The Proper Limits of the Doctrine of 'Invited Response,' 19 Crim. L. Bull. 5 (1983); David Crump, The Functions and Limits of Prosecution Jury Argument, 28 Sw. L.J. 505 (1974); J. Allison DeFour, Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument, 7 Nova L. Rev. 443, 448 (1983); Richard G. Singer, Forensic Misconduct by Federal Prosecutors - and How It Grew, 20 Ala. L. Rev. 227 (1968);
12. Henry B. Vess, Walking a Tightrope: A Survey of Limitations on a