How have courts dealt with the issue of loss of composure in closing argument?

As to counsel's loss of composure during the sharing of an anecdote, the jury must face its obligation soberly and rationally and should not be given the impression that emotion may reign over reason. In each case, the trial court must strike a careful balance between the probative and the prejudicial. (People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 864.) In the instant case, the trial court granted a brief recess when defense counsel lost his composure while recounting a childhood anecdote about his own mother. The mere expression of emotion during closing argument did not amount to ineffective assistance and, in some respects, may have led jurors to empathize with the defendant and place his version of events in a more favorable light in their eyes.

We do not find ineffective assistance on this record.

Page 19

II. THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT COMMIT INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT