PowerPoint Gone Bad: Prosecutorial Misconduct in Pierce County
Petitioner Odies Delanus Walker was convicted as an accomplice to first degree murder, first degree assault, first degree robbery, solicitation, and conspiracy on the trial level after it was alleged that he and another individual carried out a premeditated attack on an armored-car driver. In State v Walker the Washington State Supreme Court reversed Mr. Walker’s convictions because of unfairly prejudicial remarks made by the prosecuting attorney during his closing argument, many of which were accompanied by a power-point presentation containing inflammatory language, unfair characterizations of the evidence, and personal opinions of the prosecutor as to the guilt of the accused.
The State Supreme Court had ruled less than three years earlier in In re Personal Restraint Petition of Glasmann that, while closing argument is the right time for a prosecutor to draw reasonable inferences from admitted evidence, it is not proper for the prosecutor to express personal opinions on the guilt of the defendant, present altered versions of admitted evidence, or to present derogatory depictions of the defendant. This opinion also cites RPC 3.4(e), which clearly states that an attorney is expressly prohibited from offering their personal opinion on the guilt of innocence of an accused person.
During closing remarks, the prosecutor utilized a power-point presentation which contained photographs of the defendant, which were not admitted exhibits, with the words “GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”, “GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER”, and other opinions on the guilt of the defendant superimposed in bright red letters. He also superimposed racially inflammatory language over a picture of the defendant eating dinner with his family. The Supreme Court found that in this case all of the types of prohibited conduct described in Glasmann occurred, so a new trial for Mr. Walker was necessary and the case was remanded back to the trial court.
This opinion reaffirmed that it is the prosecutor’s role to impartially seek justice, not to seek conviction at any price, and that the prosecutor must “subdue courtroom zeal” in order to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that the prosecutor’s “egregious misconduct” could not have been cured by an objection and that is so prejudiced Mr. Walker’s right to a fair trial that reversal was the only remedy.
