Cited by

A prosecutor may not “describe herself and the jury as a group of which the defendant is not a part.”

State 7 v. Mayhorn, –84 (Minn. 2006) (explaining that evidence demonstrative of a defendant’s consciousness of guilt is relevant).

For example, he points to cases involving threats to potential witnesses, -83 (Minn. 2006), pre-arrest flight from officers, -47 (Minn. 2010), and intentional destruction of a crime scene, Roy, d at 171.

401, 402, 403; -83 (Minn. 2006) (concluding that defendant’s “derogatory comments about the prisoners at the local jail” were not probative of whether defendant committed charged crimes).

“A prosecutor commits misconduct by intentionally misstating evidence,” and by “eliciting inadmissible evidence,” Ramey, d at 300 (-54 (Minn. 1994)).

See State v. Mayhorn , (determining that prosecutor committed misconduct when she attempted to “appeal to the jury’s passions” by using the words “we” and “us”).

“[A] prosecutor is not a member of the jury, so to use ‘we’ and ‘us’ is inappropriate and may be an effort to appeal to the jury’s passions.”

In State v. Mayhorn, the supreme court held that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument in a case where the defendant was involved in drug trafficking when she stated, “[T]his is kind of foreign for all of us, I believe, because we’re not really accustomed to his drug world and drug dealing.” 789, 790 (Minn. 2006).

testimony to avoid inadvertently misstating it.”

“A prosecutor commits misconduct by intentionally misstating evidence.”

in which the supreme court recognized that “a prosecutor is not a member of the jury” and, thus, may not “describe herself and the jury as a group of which the defendant is not a part.” Id.

-792 (Minn. 2006) (reversing and remanding for new trial based on combination of multiple evidentiary errors and multiple incidents and types of prosecutorial misconduct).

“[A] prosecutor is not a member of the jury, so to use ‘we’ and ‘us’ is inappropriate.”

It is inappropriate for a prosecutor to “align[] [himself] with the jury” because “a prosecutor is not a member of the jury” and such language “may be an effort to appeal to the jury’s passions.”

For support, Curtis invokes State v. Mayhorn, where the supreme court held a prosecutor may not “describe [themself] and the jury as a group of which the defendant is not a part, ” and that prosecutor’s use of ‘“we’ and ‘us’ is inappropriate and may be an effort to appeal to the jury’s passions.”

in which the supreme court stated that “a prosecutor is not a member of the jury” and, thus, may not “describe herself and the jury as a group of which the defendant is not a part.” Id.

-792 (Minn. 2006) (reversing and remanding for new trial based on combination of multiple evidentiary errors and multiple incidents and types of prosecutorial misconduct).

And “[a] prosecutor commits misconduct by intentionally misstating evidence.” (“It is unprofessional conduct for the 10 prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” (quotation omitted)).

Prosecutors are not members of the jury, and therefore the use of “we” is “inappropriate and may be an effort to appeal to the jury’s passions.”

It is “improper for a prosecutor to give her own opinion about the credibility of a witness in closing argument.”

testified that Brown “told [her] if they told the cops he would kill them all.” We agree that “[a] prosecutor 8 commits misconduct by intentionally misstating evidence.” d 776, 788 (Minn. 2006).

ey’re asking you to consistently take absurd leaps about everything in this case, and that’s totally unreasonable.” Foster argues that the prosecutor plainly erred by impermissibly expressing a personal opinion regarding the defendant’s guilt, calling the defendant a liar in closing argument, 791 (Minn. 2006), shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, McDaniel, d at 750, commenting on the defendant’s failure to call a witness, McDaniel, d at 750, expressing personal opinions, as indicated b

See, (concluding that, although “[t]he state had a strong case against Mayhorn,” nonetheless “even the strongest evidence of guilt does not eliminate a defendant’s right to a fair trial”); –55 (Minn. 1994) (noting that “[t]he prosecutor had a strong case,” but “it [

Next, Schwabe argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct that constitute s plain error by improperly aligning with the jury when they made a statement during closing argument that referred to the prosecutor and the jury as “we.” Because “a prosecutor is not a member of the jury,” a prosecutor’s use of “we” statements in closing argument “is inappropriate.”

Opinion about witness credibility “[I]t is improper for a prosecutor to give her own opinion about the credibility of a witness in closing argument.”

Their role is “not simply to convict the guilty, they are also responsible for providing a procedurally fair trial.”

A prosecutor’s argument must not “appeal to the passions of the jury” or “inflame or prejudice the jury.” d 776, 786-87 (Minn. 2006).

“[A] prosecutor is not a member of the jury, so to use ‘we’ and ‘us’ is inappropriate and may be an effort to appeal to the jury’s passions.”

now that you have this information what are you going to do about it?” “A prosecutor must not appeal to the passions of the jury.” -87 (Minn. 2006).

A prosecutor “must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against the defendant.” accord State v. Mayhorn, 10 - 87 (Minn. 2006).