29.12.2012 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!