Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law
Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law
Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
type <strong>of</strong> rebuke counsel received.<br />
on defense OOwlsel, was also an inproper ccrlrment on the Credibility <strong>of</strong> the<br />
witnesses.<br />
This rebuke, in addition to thrming disfavor<br />
Since the credibility <strong>of</strong> these "bribed" witnesses was the central<br />
issue in the trial, the camxmts can hardly be considered to be harmless error.<br />
Judicial amrents on the credibility <strong>of</strong> a witness for the defense are always<br />
improper, and where itrelates to a critical issue, is reversible error.<br />
Parise v. <strong>Stat</strong>e, 320 So. 2d 444 (<strong>Fla</strong>. 4th D.C.A. 1975); Cooper v. Stab, 376<br />
So. 2d 477 (<strong>Fla</strong>. 1st D.C.A. 1979); Wore v. ___L<br />
<strong>Stat</strong>e, 386 So. 2d 590 (<strong>Fla</strong>. 5th<br />
D.C.A. 1980); m s , supra; cooper v. <strong>Stat</strong>e, 413 So. 2d 1244 (<strong>Fla</strong>. 1st D.C.A.<br />
1982).<br />
while castigating defense counsel. (T. 2253).<br />
None <strong>of</strong> this would have occurred had the court not permitted the<br />
See:<br />
The prosecutor reminded the jury <strong>of</strong> this rebuke in his closiJlg m wt<br />
prosecutors to explain in detail the nature <strong>of</strong> theis plea bargains with their<br />
witnesses, to express their distaste for making deals, and to attarpt to justify<br />
it in the eyes <strong>of</strong> the jury.<br />
%is extensive questioning went far beyond the<br />
simple inqu- to determine possible bias that was approved in - v. <strong>Stat</strong>e,<br />
418 So* 2d 989 (<strong>Fla</strong>. 1982). Here, the questioning was an attenpt tQ gain the<br />
jq"s advance approval for the deals they had made, as v d l as an attempt to<br />
get the venire to prejudge the credibility <strong>of</strong> the witnesses, by telling them<br />
what the participation <strong>of</strong> each co-defendantwitness supposedly had been.<br />
abuse <strong>of</strong> the voir dire process has been held to require reversal.<br />
-<br />
<strong>Stat</strong>e, 253 So. 2d 465 (<strong>Fla</strong>. 1st D.C.A. 1971); and Hamon v. <strong>Stat</strong>e, 394 So. 2d<br />
121 (<strong>Fla</strong>. 1st D.C.A. 1980), where PIC. Greene was also the prosecutor.<br />
Such<br />
See Smith v.<br />
The manner in which the voir dire was conducted in conjunction with<br />
the irrpropr questioning by the prosecutor and improper remarks by the trial<br />
judge, served to deprive the defendant <strong>of</strong> his right to a fair trial by an<br />
impartial jury, and his right to the effective assistance <strong>of</strong> counsel. The<br />
renvedy is a new trial.