In People v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court today holds that, during jury argument, a prosecutor impermissibly and prejudicially vouched for the credibility of two prison officers who testified against an inmate defendant convicted of assaulting one of the officers. The prosecutor said the officers wouldn’t jeopardize their careers by lying.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Joshua Groban is notable in both affirming the Court of Appeal and disapproving part of the appellate court’s decision.
The Supreme concludes that “[t]he prosecutor’s career-related arguments ‘convey the impression that evidence not presented to the jury, but known to the prosecutor, supports the charges against the defendant and can thus jeopardize the defendant’s right to be tried solely on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury.’ ” The arguments were “based upon matters outside the record that were not subject to cross-examination” and those matters were not “of common knowledge,” the court says.
The prosecutor additionally told the jury that the officers wouldn’t expose themselves to possible perjury charges. The court doesn’t decide whether that argument also requires reversal, but nonetheless warns, “prosecutors are well advised to generally avoid raising the subject of future perjury prosecutions in their closing arguments.”
The court both affirms and expressly disapproves the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s opinion. The lower court correctly held the jury argument was prejudicially improper, but, the Supreme Court says, it “appears to have overstated the import and effect of the prosecutor’s remarks.” The court also disapproves a 2013 Sixth District decision.
The express disapproval of the Fifth District’s opinion for an “overstate[ment]” seems unusual. That is especially true because the Supreme Court’s own decision acknowledges and discusses at some length “some divergence in our precedent” on prosecutorial vouching, yet doesn’t overrule any of its prior cases.
