NCJ Number
161424
Journal
Illinois Bar Journal Volume: 84 Issue: 5 Dated: (May 1996) Pages: 244-248,260
Date Published
1996
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article presents examples of how prosecutors have crossed the line from zealous advocacy to improper argument, and reviews the special issues raised by prosecutors' improper closing arguments.
Abstract
Prosecutors, more than other attorneys, have an obligation to present only proper evidence and make only proper arguments. A prosecutor who intentionally makes an improper argument is breaching an ethical obligation. Improper arguments usually suffer from one of the following defects: (1) They are not based on the evidence (misstating the evidence or expressing the prosecutor's opinion); (2) They discuss the defendant exercising one of his rights (e.g., the right not to testify); (3) They attempt to minimize or shift the burden of proof; or (4) They do not help the jury decide the ultimate question. The author discusses improper arguments (though not the issue of misstating the law), and cites many of the cases that define the law. In summary; The state's attorney's duty to treat the defendant fairly applies to his argument to the jury as well as to the introduction of evidence.