MANOS, District Judge.
The State of Ohio appeals the district court’s grant of a writ of habeas corpus on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct during the murder trial of appellee, Fred Angel. The only issue presented to this court for review is whether statements by the prosecutor violated Angel’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial.
[1053]*1053On July 1, 1977 Angel was drinking heavily at the Turf Club bar in Hamilton, Ohio. In the early hours of July 2, 1977, the decedent, James Lang entered the bar. An angry verbal exchange ensued between the two men which escalated into a physical confrontation outside of the bar. The two men scuffled until Angel, who claimed he had suffered a knife wound, managed to free himself. Angel testified that at this point he walked to his car which was parked nearby and removed a gun from its trunk for the purpose of warning Lang to leave him alone. Failing to heed this warning, Lang pursued Angel and resumed the scuffle during which the gun discharged, fatally wounding Lang in the chest. Angel then disappeared into an alley near the Turf Club where he threw the gun into a trash can.
Subsequent to the shooting Angel returned to the Turf Club and was present when Hamilton Police Officer Nugent arrived to investigate Lang’s death. After being given the Miranda warnings 1 Angel gave a statement to the police in which he denied being present at the Turf Club when Lang was shot.2 Angel was arrested nearly three weeks later after the police had conducted an investigation. He made no further statements either at the time of his arrest, or prior to trial. During his trial Angel did not claim the defense of alibi. He did, however, assert the affirmative defense of self-defense.3 On cross-examination Angel admitted that he had given a false statement to the police on July 2, 1977, and that he had neither shown his wound to police at that time, nor, mentioned it any time while he was in police custody.
In October, 1977, despite his assertion of the affirmative defense of self-defense, Angel was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. At trial there was conflicting testimony as to whether Lang or, Angel had started the fight and as to whether Angel had pointed the gun and fired or the gun had simply discharged during the scuffle.
In granting the writ of habeas corpus the district court held that the prosecutor made repeated prejudicial statements which were cumulatively “so egregious as to render Angel’s trial fundamentally unfair,” and, therefore, constitute a denial of due process.4 Cook v. Bordenkircher, 602 F.2d 117 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 936, 100 [1054]*1054S.Ct. 286, 62 L.Ed.2d 196 (1979); Eberhardt v. Bordenkircher, 605 F.2d 275 (6th Cir. 1979). This court agrees that prosecutorial misconduct denied Angel a fair trial and affirms the grant of the writ of habeas corpus.
The thrust of the prosecutor’s argument concerned the election of the defense counsel to reserve opening statement until after the state of Ohio had put on its case-in-chief. The prosecutor used defense counsel’s right to reserve opening statement to suggest that defense counsel acted in bad faith in order to gam the advantage of hearing the state’s evidence prior to deciding whether to present a defense premised upon alibi or self-defense.5
The court is in agreement with the district judge’s holding that the prosecutor’s comments concerning an alibi defense were made in a clear effort to confuse the jury, and to bolster his theory that defense counsel waited until trial to manufacture their theory of defense.
Rule 12.1 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that notice be given seven days in advance of trial if a defense of alibi is going to be presented. Without such notice an alibi defense will be excluded absent a showing that justice requires otherwise. The record reflects and the prosecutor was well aware that defense counsel had not given notice of any intention to present a defense based on an alibi. Furthermore, the only suggestion of an alibi was elicited by the prosecutor during his cross-examination of Angel concerning his prior inconsistent statement to the Hamilton police.
In Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1934), the Supreme Court in prohibiting prosecutorial use of insinuations, misstatement of facts and comments concerning facts or information not in evidence, held: “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.” 295 U.S. at 88, 55 S.Ct. at 633, 79 L.Ed. at 1321 (1934).
Not only is the prosecutor’s alibi comment false and misleading, but it also implies that Angel was obligated to present some defense at trial, which is contrary to both the never shifting burden of proof [1055]*1055imposed upon the state in a criminal case, and the right of a criminal defendant to remain silent.
After raising the inference that the defendant’s self-defense claim was a recent fabrication, the prosecutor went on to characterize certain defense witnesses as “last minute witnesses” called to bolster the sagging defense. He also accused defense witnesses of lying, and he implied they had done so with the advice and consent of defense counsel.6
In his motion for mistrial, defense counsel objected to the prosecutor’s characterization of certain witnesses as “last minute witnesses.” We agree with district court’s holding that in the face of counsel’s objection and the absence of evidence to the contrary, such a characterization was prejudicial to the rights of the defendant because it asserted personal knowledge on the part of the prosecutor to which the jury was apt to accord weight. Berger v. United States, supra.
The credibility which the jury assigned to the witnesses and their testimony was determinative to the return of a guilty verdict. Witnesses called by both sides offered testimony different from statements given to the police prior to trial. Nearly all the witnesses had been drinking on July 2,1977, and they admitted to varying degrees of intoxication. Evidence of whether Lang or Angel precipitated the incident, and who pursued whom was the subject of contradictory testimony. Had the jury credited the testimony of Angel and other defense witnesses, it might have found that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The manner in which the prosecutor chose to comment on inconsistent statements by defense witnesses and the defendant himself improperly implied that the defense attorneys had acted illegally and unethically. The clear import to be given the prosecutor’s use of “they” in his argument includes defense counsel and not so subtly suggests that counsel helped concoct the appellee’s claim of self-defense and then counseled defense witness to give testimony at trial which differed from their police [1056]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MANOS, District Judge.
The State of Ohio appeals the district court’s grant of a writ of habeas corpus on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct during the murder trial of appellee, Fred Angel. The only issue presented to this court for review is whether statements by the prosecutor violated Angel’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial.
[1053]*1053On July 1, 1977 Angel was drinking heavily at the Turf Club bar in Hamilton, Ohio. In the early hours of July 2, 1977, the decedent, James Lang entered the bar. An angry verbal exchange ensued between the two men which escalated into a physical confrontation outside of the bar. The two men scuffled until Angel, who claimed he had suffered a knife wound, managed to free himself. Angel testified that at this point he walked to his car which was parked nearby and removed a gun from its trunk for the purpose of warning Lang to leave him alone. Failing to heed this warning, Lang pursued Angel and resumed the scuffle during which the gun discharged, fatally wounding Lang in the chest. Angel then disappeared into an alley near the Turf Club where he threw the gun into a trash can.
Subsequent to the shooting Angel returned to the Turf Club and was present when Hamilton Police Officer Nugent arrived to investigate Lang’s death. After being given the Miranda warnings 1 Angel gave a statement to the police in which he denied being present at the Turf Club when Lang was shot.2 Angel was arrested nearly three weeks later after the police had conducted an investigation. He made no further statements either at the time of his arrest, or prior to trial. During his trial Angel did not claim the defense of alibi. He did, however, assert the affirmative defense of self-defense.3 On cross-examination Angel admitted that he had given a false statement to the police on July 2, 1977, and that he had neither shown his wound to police at that time, nor, mentioned it any time while he was in police custody.
In October, 1977, despite his assertion of the affirmative defense of self-defense, Angel was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. At trial there was conflicting testimony as to whether Lang or, Angel had started the fight and as to whether Angel had pointed the gun and fired or the gun had simply discharged during the scuffle.
In granting the writ of habeas corpus the district court held that the prosecutor made repeated prejudicial statements which were cumulatively “so egregious as to render Angel’s trial fundamentally unfair,” and, therefore, constitute a denial of due process.4 Cook v. Bordenkircher, 602 F.2d 117 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 936, 100 [1054]*1054S.Ct. 286, 62 L.Ed.2d 196 (1979); Eberhardt v. Bordenkircher, 605 F.2d 275 (6th Cir. 1979). This court agrees that prosecutorial misconduct denied Angel a fair trial and affirms the grant of the writ of habeas corpus.
The thrust of the prosecutor’s argument concerned the election of the defense counsel to reserve opening statement until after the state of Ohio had put on its case-in-chief. The prosecutor used defense counsel’s right to reserve opening statement to suggest that defense counsel acted in bad faith in order to gam the advantage of hearing the state’s evidence prior to deciding whether to present a defense premised upon alibi or self-defense.5
The court is in agreement with the district judge’s holding that the prosecutor’s comments concerning an alibi defense were made in a clear effort to confuse the jury, and to bolster his theory that defense counsel waited until trial to manufacture their theory of defense.
Rule 12.1 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that notice be given seven days in advance of trial if a defense of alibi is going to be presented. Without such notice an alibi defense will be excluded absent a showing that justice requires otherwise. The record reflects and the prosecutor was well aware that defense counsel had not given notice of any intention to present a defense based on an alibi. Furthermore, the only suggestion of an alibi was elicited by the prosecutor during his cross-examination of Angel concerning his prior inconsistent statement to the Hamilton police.
In Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1934), the Supreme Court in prohibiting prosecutorial use of insinuations, misstatement of facts and comments concerning facts or information not in evidence, held: “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.” 295 U.S. at 88, 55 S.Ct. at 633, 79 L.Ed. at 1321 (1934).
Not only is the prosecutor’s alibi comment false and misleading, but it also implies that Angel was obligated to present some defense at trial, which is contrary to both the never shifting burden of proof [1055]*1055imposed upon the state in a criminal case, and the right of a criminal defendant to remain silent.
After raising the inference that the defendant’s self-defense claim was a recent fabrication, the prosecutor went on to characterize certain defense witnesses as “last minute witnesses” called to bolster the sagging defense. He also accused defense witnesses of lying, and he implied they had done so with the advice and consent of defense counsel.6
In his motion for mistrial, defense counsel objected to the prosecutor’s characterization of certain witnesses as “last minute witnesses.” We agree with district court’s holding that in the face of counsel’s objection and the absence of evidence to the contrary, such a characterization was prejudicial to the rights of the defendant because it asserted personal knowledge on the part of the prosecutor to which the jury was apt to accord weight. Berger v. United States, supra.
The credibility which the jury assigned to the witnesses and their testimony was determinative to the return of a guilty verdict. Witnesses called by both sides offered testimony different from statements given to the police prior to trial. Nearly all the witnesses had been drinking on July 2,1977, and they admitted to varying degrees of intoxication. Evidence of whether Lang or Angel precipitated the incident, and who pursued whom was the subject of contradictory testimony. Had the jury credited the testimony of Angel and other defense witnesses, it might have found that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The manner in which the prosecutor chose to comment on inconsistent statements by defense witnesses and the defendant himself improperly implied that the defense attorneys had acted illegally and unethically. The clear import to be given the prosecutor’s use of “they” in his argument includes defense counsel and not so subtly suggests that counsel helped concoct the appellee’s claim of self-defense and then counseled defense witness to give testimony at trial which differed from their police [1056]*1056statements thereby commanding perjury as the only means of establishing a defense. Impugning the integrity of counsel is improper and may in some circumstances operate to deny a defendant the effective assistance of counsel. See, United States v. Bess, 593 F.2d 749 (6th Cir. 1979); United States v. McDonald, 620 F.2d 559, 564 (5th Cir. 1980).
The prosecutor is ordinarily accorded great latitude in making his closing argument and may properly rebut and make fair response to argument made by defense counsel. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974); Cronnon v. Alabama, 587 F.2d 246 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 974, 99 S.Ct. 1542, 59 L.Ed.2d 792 (1979). There is a difference, however, between permissible rebuttal of impassioned remarks made by defense counsel and abuse by the prosecutor of his opportunity to convince the jury to sift and order the facts in concert with his own view of the case. See: Houston v. Estelle, 569 F.2d 372 (5th Cir. 1978).
Not all prosecutorial misconduct constitutes error which rises to a level that denies a defendant’s right to due process. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, supra; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The issue of whether prosecutorial argument is so egregious as to render a trial fundamentally unfair must be determined by the totality of circumstances surrounding each individual case. Summitt v. Bordenkircher, 608 F.2d 247, 253 (6th Cir. 1979), aff’d., 449 U.S. 341, 101 S.Ct. 654, 66 L.Ed.2d 549 (1981); Cook v. Bordenkircher, 602 F.2d 117 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 936, 100 S.Ct. 286, 62 L.Ed.2d 196 (1979). The factors which should be con sidered by the court in its analysis were summarized in United States v. Leon, 534 F.2d 667, 679 (6th Cir. 1976), as follows:
In every case, we consider the degree to which the remarks complained of have a tendency to mislead the jury and to prejudice the accused; whether they are isolated or extensive; whether they were deliberately or accidentally placed before the jury, and the strength of the competent proof introduced.
See also: United States v. Bowen, 500 F.2d 41 (6th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1003, 95 S.Ct. 322, 42 L.Ed.2d 278 (1975).
In the instant case the prosecutor’s improper comments were not isolated, offhand remarks. Rather they were deliberately calculated to mislead the jury and to gain a guilty verdict through the use of facts not in evidence, and insinuations that Angel, his attorneys and witnesses testifying on Angel’s behalf were lying. Applying the due process standard to the instant case, this court holds that the cumulative effect of the prosecutorial misconduct which occurred at Angel’s trial denied him a fair trial and that the instances of such misconduct cannot be dismissed as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Eberhart v. Bordenkircher, 605 F.2d 275 (6th Cir. 1979); Minor v. Black, 527 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 3189, 3190, 49 L.Ed.2d 1198 (1976). Accordingly, the grant of the writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.