What is the effect of the prosecutor's prejudicial misconduct in the closing argument in the third trial of a child abuse case?

This case was tried in the Santa Clara County Superior Court three separate times. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. We reversed the judgment in defendant's second trial, because the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during the trial. (People v. Shazier (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 294, review granted Aug, 30, 2006, S144419.)¹

Page 2

During the third trial in this case, the prosecutor told the jury in his closing argument that if they were to find the petition not true, they would be subject to ignominy within their community. The prosecutor also told the jury that it was likely that defendant, who he described as a "prolific child molester," had other victims who had not reported his crimes, when there was no evidence presented at trial that defendant had committed additional uncharged crimes against unknown victims. (People v. Shazier (2012) Cal.App.4th 520, review granted Apr. 17, 2013, S208398.)

In the present appeal, we reversed the judgment based solely on prosecutorial misconduct that made defendant's trial fundamentally unfair.