Call Now For Help


Prosecutorial Misconduct Found in Domestic Violence Trial


by in Criminal Appeals

State v. J.I.F., unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-6270-07T4 (March 4, 2010) – Conviction reversed. “Defendant asserts that his right to a fair trial was violated by the prosecutor’s summation. Specifically, he contends that the prosecutor ‘suggested that the jury could reach its own conclusions as to how many times prior to this incident the defendant had battered [the victim] despite the fact that no evidence was admitted concerning prior instances of domestic violence.’…

[W]e are satisfied that the prosecutor should not have posed those two above-emphasized rhetorical questions to the jury [asking, ‘Do you think this is a one time episode in that house?’] because there was in actuality no evidence of any prior assaults or prior coercion. We cannot say that this ‘invitation to the jury to speculate ‘ had no ‘palpable impact’ impact on the jury’s verdict …, particularly because the testimony of Dr. Lischick should not have been admitted. We are not satisfied that the judge’s curative instruction insulated the jury from any improper speculation. Defendant’s motion for a mistrial should have been granted.” See also EVIDENCE.






*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey | Rating Methodology | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
The information contained in on this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio or the information, products, or services contained on for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
The results of verdicts and settlements mentioned herein are not typical. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

Site by Law Firm Website Designers / Criminal Defense/DWI Lawyer Marketing.