Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

During the course of swanation by both prosecutors, numerous prejudicial a&
inflmtory resnarks w ae made: &jections were voiced to sme, though not
all, of -t-hese cam-ents. In the state's first ar-t, the pmsecubr referred
ta the defendant as a l'predator'l, one of "those sharks that feed off human
misery producd by this drug culture, vicious, ugly, terrorizing, threatening
hill". (T. 2127-2128) .Shortly thereafter,he called the defendant a %cious anhl".
(T. 2131), *n a "wounded, .wounded vicious animal". (T. 2135) The defense
motion for mistrial was denied, though an instruction to disregard was given.
(T. 2136). The prosecutor the-n shifted his attack to the tactics of defense
munsel, accusing the defense of giving a vague opening statement and then
"constructing" the defendant's testimony. (T. 2140-2141). The defense motion
for mistrial was denied; the court stated that the camrent was "proper".
(T. 2141). The defendant'was then called a "devil1'. (T. 2142). Despite the
fact that all the evidence shed there were only two guns used in these three
bcmicides , the prosecutor said, "I tell you, I subit to you, there were guns
everywhere before and after". (T. 2150). Cbunsel objected, but the prosecutor
was permitted to continue tlx? argwrmt. (T. 2150). The defendant was again
assailed as a "screaming (sic) evil person" who muld 'have a license to kill"
if acquitted. (T. 2183-2184). The defense objection was over-ruled. (T. 2184).
After the defense sumvation, T, ?Ziward Austin, the State Attorney for
the Fourth Judicial Circuit, gave the rebuttal argument.
He first accused
defense counsel of laying down a 11sm3kescrea". (T. 2248). &W. Austin then
Page -44-