NCJ Number
178433
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 23 Issue: 4 Dated: August 1999 Pages: 471-486
Date Published
1999
Length
16 pages
Annotation
Three hundred twenty-eight jury-eligible individuals took part in a study that examined whether improper statements made by the prosecutor in the closing argument during the penalty phase of a capital trial would result in more recommendations for capital punishment.
Abstract
The participants each viewed a videotape based on the penalty phase of the actual capital trial involved in Brooks v. State in 1977. The case involved an armed robbery, rape, kidnapping, and first-degree murder of a young woman. During the penalty phase of the trial, the prosecutor made 12 specific statements in his closing argument that Brooks believed were improper and in violation of his constitutional rights. Brooks received a death sentence. The appellate court decided that some of the prosecutor's arguments were excessive, but the Federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit voted 10 to 3 to refuse to overturn the death sentence. The present research used videotapes that varied with respect to the prosecutor's closing argument. One videotape used the argument from the actual transcript, while the other videotape did not contain the statements cited in Brooks' appeal. Individuals exposed to improper statements made by the prosecutor in closing arguments recommended the death penalty significantly more often than those not exposed to the statements. Figure, tables, and 44 references (Author abstract modified)