Is it improper for a prosecutor to make arguments to the jury that give the impression that emotion may reign over reason?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Cosinero, D074742 (Cal. App. 2020):

" ' "It is, of course, improper [for the prosecutor] to make arguments to the jury that give it the impression that 'emotion may reign over reason,' and to present 'irrelevant information or inflammatory rhetoric that diverts the jury's attention from its proper role, or invites an irrational, purely subjective response.' " ' [Citation.] We consider the assertedly improper remarks in the context of the argument as a whole. [Citation.] 'In conducting [our] inquiry, we "do not lightly infer" that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor's statements.' " (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 894 (Covarrubias).)

Other Questions


Is it improper to make arguments to the jury that give the impression that emotion may reign over reason? (California, United States of America)
When a prosecutor makes an argument that the prosecutor was aware of the facts to the jury in a death penalty case, is it improper or improper? (California, United States of America)
Can a prosecutor who described the defense case as "ludicrous," "contrived" and "bogus" in his arguments to the jury use improper or improper language? (California, United States of America)
Is there a reasonable likelihood that a prosecutor's comment at the closing argument was directed solely at the persuasive force of defense counsel's closing argument? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have a claim that a prosecutor made improper racial references in the prosecutor's guilt phase argument to the jury? (California, United States of America)
When a prosecutor criticizes a defense attorney's conduct at trial, can the prosecutor be found guilty of misconduct if the prosecutor's arguments are not in the context of the defense counsel's conduct? (California, United States of America)
If a prosecutor has made a number of improper statements in their closing argument, would the defense counsel have been within the bounds of reasonable competence to respond with an objection? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a prosecutor to make a statement that a reasonable doubt is reasonable? (California, United States of America)
Is it improper for a prosecutor to argue that the prosecution has met its burden of overcome reasonable doubt on all elements? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.