California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gutierrez, B241823 (Cal. App. 2014):
use of "deceptive or reprehensible methods" when attempting to persuade either the trial court or the jury, and it is reasonably probable that without such misconduct, an outcome more favorable to the defendant would have resulted. [Citation.] Under the federal Constitution, conduct by a prosecutor that does not result in the denial of the defendant's specific constitutional rightssuch as a comment upon the defendant's invocation of the right to remain silentbut is otherwise worthy of condemnation, is not a constitutional violation unless the challenged action "'so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.'''' [Citations.] In addition, '"a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashionand on the same groundthe defendant made an assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety. [Citation.]"' [Citation.] Objection may be excused if it would have been futile or an admonition would not have cured the harm." (People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 760.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.