the jury view the case from the victim’s perspective include: People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1407 (“The prosecutor also asked the jurors to imagine the thoughts of the victims in their last seconds of life. We agree with defendant that this was improper”); (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 704; People v. Mendoza People v. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1130 [“[A]n appeal for sympathy for the victim is Kipp out of place during an objective determination of guilt”]); (2010) People v. Vance 188 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1192-1200 [reversed where the prosecutor asked the jurors to put themselves in the victim’s position and imagine what the victim experienced and argued about the impact of the crime on the victim’s family, judge gave no admonition]; (3d Cir. 1994) 24 F.3d 535, 545-46; United States v. Copple Sager v. (Ore. 1995) 907 F.Supp.1412, 1420; (Tex. Crim. App. Maass Miller-El v. State 1990) 782 S.W.2d 892, 895. K. General Appeals to Sympathy or Passions: has long been settled that appeals to the sympathy or passions of the jury “It are inappropriate at the phase of a criminal trial. [Citations.] We recognize that the prosecutor vigorously argue his case and is not limited to ‘may politeness”’ [citations], but the bounds of vigorous argument do “Chesterfieldian not permit appeals to sympathy or passion such as that presented here.” (People v. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 362-363, fn. omitted.) Fields III. Violating Rights: A. Defendant’s Demeanor: In criminal trials, prosecutorial references to a nontestifying defendant’s
the jury view the case from the victim’s perspective include: People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1407 (“The prosecutor also asked the jurors to imagine the thoughts of the victims in their last seconds of life. We agree with defendant that this was improper”); People v. Mendoza (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 704; People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1130 [“[A]n appeal for sympathy for the victim is out of place during an objective determination of guilt”]); People v. Vance (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1192-1200 [reversed where the prosecutor asked the jurors to put themselves in the victim’s position and imagine what the victim experienced and argued about the impact of the crime on the victim’s family, judge gave no admonition]; United States v. Copple (3d Cir. 1994) 24 F.3d 535, 545-46; Sager v. Maass (Ore. 1995) 907 F.Supp.1412, 1420; Miller-El v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) 782 S.W.2d 892, 895. K. General Appeals to Sympathy or Passions: “It has long been settled that appeals to the sympathy or passions of the jury are inappropriate at the phase of a criminal trial. [Citations.] We recognize that the prosecutor ‘may vigorously argue his case and is not limited to “Chesterfieldian politeness”’ [citations], but the bounds of vigorous argument do not permit appeals to sympathy or passion such as that presented here.” (People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 362-363, fn. omitted.) III. Violating Rights: A. Defendant’s Demeanor: In criminal trials, prosecutorial references to a nontestifying defendant’s
nk15.docx