(1976) 39 N.Y.2d 105, 110 [“the prosecutor’s remark definitely People v. Ashwal conveys the impression that [the potential witness] was killed by those he had informed upon, one of whom was this defendant”].) D. Appeals to Racial or Ethnic Prejudice: It is improper to use racial or ethnic epithets, or to otherwise appeal to racial or ethnic prejudice, in argument. (Kelly (9th Cir. 1975) 514 F.2d 18, 19 v. Stone [finding the prosecutor’s argument that the next time it won’t be a little “maybe black girl from the other side of the tracks; maybe it will be somebody that you know” constituted a inflammatory and wholly impermissible appeal to “highly racial prejudice.”].) Similarly, injection of a defendant’s ethnicity into a trial as evidence of criminal behavior is self-evidently improper and prejudicial for reasons that need no elaboration. (People (1927) 80 Cal.App. 675, 677-686 [reversing v. Simon where the prosecutor argued has been so many fires where the Jew lived in “there the house in order to obtain the money” and providing that is the duty of this “it court not to allow the fountains of justice to be poisoned by what, in the instant case, savors so strong of race prejudice.”]; (9th Cir. United States v. Cabrera 2000) 222 F.3d 590, 596 [reversal for improper reference to drug dealers” “Cuban that had the effect of putting the city of Los Vegas’s Cuban “cumulative community on trial” rather than sticking to the facts of the defendants’ drug offenses].) E. Appeals to Religious Preference or Prejudice:
People v. Ashwal (1976) 39 N.Y.2d 105, 110 [“the prosecutor’s remark definitely conveys the impression that [the potential witness] was killed by those he had informed upon, one of whom was this defendant”].) D. Appeals to Racial or Ethnic Prejudice: It is improper to use racial or ethnic epithets, or to otherwise appeal to racial or ethnic prejudice, in argument. (Kelly v. Stone (9th Cir. 1975) 514 F.2d 18, 19 [finding the prosecutor’s argument that “maybe the next time it won’t be a little black girl from the other side of the tracks; maybe it will be somebody that you know” constituted a “highly inflammatory and wholly impermissible appeal to racial prejudice.”].) Similarly, injection of a defendant’s ethnicity into a trial as evidence of criminal behavior is self-evidently improper and prejudicial for reasons that need no elaboration. (People v. Simon (1927) 80 Cal.App. 675, 677-686 [reversing where the prosecutor argued “there has been so many fires where the Jew lived in the house in order to obtain the money” and providing that “it is the duty of this court not to allow the fountains of justice to be poisoned by what, in the instant case, savors so strong of race prejudice.”]; United States v. Cabrera (9th Cir. 2000) 222 F.3d 590, 596 [reversal for improper reference to “Cuban drug dealers” that had the “cumulative effect of putting the city of Los Vegas’s Cuban community on trial” rather than sticking to the facts of the defendants’ drug offenses].) E. Appeals to Religious Preference or Prejudice:
nk15.docx