Cited by

(concluding “were they lying” questions were permissible where defense’s theory focused on contending that state witnesses were lying and the evidence was fabricated).

osecutor’s statement that “if you believe her, that’s all you need [to convict].” The supreme court has stated that “were they lying” questions may be inappropriate, as such questions are “perceived as unfairly giving the jury the impressions that in order to acquit, they must determine that witnesses whose testimony is at odds with the testimony of the defendant are lying.” 18 (Minn. 1999).

[the challenged closing] argument when analyzing the validity of ‘were they lying’ questions.” 2014 WL 7011140, at *5 ().

9 To constitute plain error, the “error must have been so clear under applicable law at the time of conviction, and so prejudicial to the defendant ’s right to a fair trial, that the defendant ’s failure to object —and thereby present the trial court with an opportunity to avoid prejudice—should not forfeit his right to a remedy.” (quoting Rairdon v. State , ).

neither probable cause nor a warrant is required.” State v. Pilot

Appellate courts examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and will assume “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved ev idence contradicting those witnesses.”

On review, appellate courts assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved evidence contradicting those witnesses.”

Appellate courts examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and will assume that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved evidence contradicting those witnesses.”

“As a general rule, ‘were they lying’ questions have no probative value and are improper and argumentative because 6 they do nothing to assist the jury in assessing witness credibility in its fact-finding mission and in determining the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.” State v. Pilot , d 511, 518 (Minn. 1999); see also State v. Morton , (stating that “were they lying” questions “shifted the jury’s focus by creating the impression that the jury must c onclude that these two witnesses were ly

We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and in doing so we “assume that the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved evidence contradicting those witnesses.”

“Were they lying” questions generally “have no probative value and are improper and argumentative because they do nothing to assist the jury in assessing witness credibility in its fact-finding mission and in determining the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.”

233, 235 (Minn. 2005) ( concluding that the state had asked “were they lying” questions by asking the defendant, “[S]o Janet Spencer wasn’t telling the truth when she was on the stand?” and “so Catherine Cox is not telling the truth?”); -18 (Minn. 1999) (noting that the state had asked the defendant to “comment on the veracity of three of the state’s witnesses” before concluding 8 that the prosecutor’s “were they lying” questions were permissible ).

neither probable cause nor a warrant is required.”

Plain error has “a high threshold of persuasion,” and the appellant bears the burden of persuasion on the third prong, Griller, d at 741.

Tscheu, d at 863 (involving a case in which the law had not changed during the pendency of the appeal); (same); (same); (same); (same); (same).

n.1 (Minn. 1999) (explaining that in an improper “were they lying” question, a prosecutor first asks the defendant if he heard the earlier testimony and if that testimony was accurate before then asking the defendant to comment on the witness’s truthfulness); see Morton, d at 233, 235 (explaining tha

(acknowledging that there is no “blanket prohibition” on “were they lying” questions, but holding that under the facts of the case, the prosecutor committed misconduct by posing such questions); (discussing the impropriety of “were they lying” questions).

Gas Corp., 281 F.Supp.2d 1117, 1126-27 (D.Ariz.2003); State v. Morales, 198 Ariz. 372 , 10 P.3d 630, 633 (2000); State v. Hart, 303 Mont.

If these three prongs are met, we “then assess[] whether [we] should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.” (noting that for plain error to exist, “the trial error must have been so clear under applicable law at the time of conviction, and so prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, that the defendant’s failure to object — and thereby present the trial court with an opportunity to avoid prejudi