United States v. Clinton L. Phillips
UNITED STATES of America v. Clinton L. PHILLIPS, Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, charged in a two-count indictment with second degree murder, a violation of 22 D.C.Code § 2403 (1967), and with carrying a dangerous weapon without a license, a violation of 22 D.C. Code § 3204 (1967), appeals from his conviction of the latter crime.
We reach only appellant’s contention that the prosecutor’s improper closing and rebuttal arguments were so highly prejudicial as to require reversal.
On no fewer than three occasions, once during closing and twice during rebuttal, the prosecutor sought to draw an analogy between the crime charged against appellant and those involving Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, [Richard] Speck and Jack Ruby.
“While such an argument is always to be condemned as ‘an appeal wholly irrelevant to any facts or issues in the case,’ Viereck v. United States, 318 U. S. 236, 247 , 63 S.Ct. 561, 566 , 87 L. Ed. 734 (1943), and as a dereliction of the prosecutor’s high duty to prosecute fairly, see Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 , 55 S.Ct. 629 , 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935), in the context of current events, raising the spectre of [heinous crimes] . . . was an especially flagrant and reprehensible appeal to *539 passion and prejudice. Although the prosecutor ‘may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. 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.’ Berger v. United States, supra, 295 U.S. at 88 , 55 S.Ct. at 633 ; Viereck v. United States, supra, 318 U.S. at 248 , 63 S.Ct. at 567 .” Brown v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 224 , 370 F.2d 242, 246 (1966).
Reversed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(reference to defendant as comparable to James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Richard Speck and Jack Ruby)
-
(there was improper analogy drawn between defendant’s charges and those involving Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, Rich- ard Speck, and Jack Ruby)
-
(prosecutor’s comments on three occasions which sought to compare the defendant’s crime with crimes of three other infamous criminals held to be highly prejudicial requiring reversal)
-
(prosecutor’s use of inflammatory comments in rebuttal and closing argument)
Cited by 17 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.