Does a prosecutor's comment regarding a defendant's failure to testify on Page 9 constitute prejudicial misconduct?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bonilla, B216456 (Cal. App. 2011):
"[W]e 'do not lightly infer' that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor's statements. [Citation.]" (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 970.) There is no reason to infer that the jury drew any improper meaning from the prosecutor's comment, and certainly no reason to assume that it led the jury to think about whether appellant had provided a postarrest statement to law enforcement. While a prosecutor's comment regarding a defendant's failure to testify
Page 9
may constitute prejudicial misconduct (Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609), lack of testimony was not an issue in this case, as appellant testified on his own behalf. The prosecutor's comment was well within the bounds of proper argument, and not a ground for reversal of appellant's conviction.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
