The following excerpt is from Pardue v. Montgomery, No. 2:14-cv-02255-JKS (E.D. Cal. 2016):
1445 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that a prosecutor must have "reasonable latitude" to fashion closing arguments). A reviewing court should consider challenged remarks in light of the realistic nature of closing arguments at trial. In determining whether remarks rendered a trial fundamentally unfair, a court must judge the remarks in the context of the entire proceeding to determine whether the argument influenced the jury's decision. Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 385 (1990); Darden, 477 U.S. at 179-82. A prosecutor's comments in summation constitute grounds for reversal only when the remarks caused actual prejudice. Shaw v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 473, 478 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying harmless error test to claim of prosecutorial misconduct in summation).
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.