………end of 16 p. Formal Complaint against Assistant DA Hubbard to the NC Bar, asking for appropriate relief from wrongful imprisonment…
p. 567 9-10 “Well, I contend to you that you can believe Veronica.” Finch v. United States, 867 A.2d 222,227 (D.C. 2005) (Improper for prosecutor to express evident opinion that government witness’ testimony had been incredibly straightforward.”) Diaz v. United States, 716 A.2d 173, 180 (D.C. 1997) (Improper for prosecutor to misstate the record by implying that defendant lied) p. 567 21-25 And I contend to you that if you apply those tests to the testimony of Veronica Palacios that you heard from the witness stand, that you won’t have any doubt that she is telling you the truth and that she is absolutely credible.” p.568 lines 1-4 In fact, the only question —— the only question that matters in this case is do you believe Veronica? If you do, then clearly the defendant is guilty of all these crimes. p. 570, lines 17-25 But, again, you know, she —— she —— at this interview she wasn’t out to make herself look good or make herself look perfect or anything else. She was obviously out to tell the truth. And that’s what she was doing. And now, you know, because they have so little to —— to hang their hat on —— MS. BAILEY: Objection. MR. HUBBARD: —— the defense is saying ——THE COURT: Overruled.
Powell v. United States, 455 A.2d 13, 16 (D.C. 1982) (“It is for the jury, not the counsel, to decide whether a witness is telling the truth. An attorney may not divert jurors from this task by injecting his personal evaluation as to a witness’ veracity…The prosecutor may not publically cast his vote.”) Dyson v. United States, 418 A.2d 127, 130 (D.C. 1980) (en banc) (Reversible error where porsecutor characterized dense testimony as “falsehood”, argued that there was “not a grain of truth in this defense” and asserted that the defense witnesses had “lied”) W
p.571, lines 1-3 Hubbard: – the defense is saying, Oh, well…cut it off, don’t watch the rest of it, don’t want to put it in context.” Making untoward comments about assuming what the defense is saying. p. 571 Lines 8-25, Imagine the most personal or embarrassing or hurtful moment of your life, whatever that might be, and then imagine – and it’s probably – hopefully for none of you that moment is that for four and a half years you were abused by – sexually abused by your father. But, in any event, imagine whatever that moment might be, and the imagine you were a fifteen-year-old girl, as she is now. And some of y’all have children and know…And imagine you had to go in and sit up here in this witness stand…But imagine you had to sit up here and look out at your family… p.572 lines1-6 But she did an admirable, commendable job of remaining quiet and respectful and cogently and intelligently telling you all these hurtful and embarrassing and terrible things that she suffered at the hands of one of the people who should have loved her most. He should have protected her from people like him.
Morris v. United States, 564 A.2d 746 (D.C. 1989) (Improper for prosecutor to invite jurors to imagine conversations between co-defendants)
ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 3-5.8 (a). (“the prosecutor should not intentionally misstate evidence or mislead jury as to the inferences it may draw.”) -taken from www.tdcaa.com/node/5266 A prosecuting attorney, though free to strike hard blows, is not at liberty to strike foul ones, either directly or indirectly … 21 This was improper because it was simply “a plea for abandonment of objectivity” rather than any legal basis for punishment. “Place yourselves in the shoes of the victim … How would you feel? What would you want?”22 Again, this is improper because it invites the jury to assess punishment based on a sense of vengeance rather than the facts and the law. p. 572 Lines 14-18 She did commendably well in telling you the truth about what happened to her. She has no reason to lie despite what Ms. Bailey said.
p.573 1-3 She didn’t do this because she wanted to get out of the house. She did it because she wanted the abuse to stop. She wanted her father not to be able to come in and have sex with her whenever he felt like it.
p. 574 –lines7-11 The only thing that this child had to gain from coming forward – well, a couple of things, for the pain and the abuse to stop and maybe hopefully to see a little bit of justice, to see that somebody does care enough to tell him that it’s not okay. In order to establish plain error, West must show that any error in giving the transferred intent instruction was “obvious or readily apparent, and that it was so clearly prejudicial [*7] to [his] substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of the trial.” Id. (quoting Harris v. United States, 602 A.2d 154, 159 & n.6 (D.C. 1992) (en banc) (citations omitted)). Aralles with 8th Amendment NC & US Constitution 8th Amendment NC & US Constitution Article 26 – Bail. Northern California Innocence Project brought a state habeas petition, which was granted on the basis of the cumulative harm done by egregious prosecutorial misconduct.
Where is the justice here?