Case Detail
CitationPeople v. Jodhan, 831 N.Y.S.2d 53 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
CrimeSex crimes
Pros. First NameUKN
Pros. Last NameUKN
Trial Year2003
BodyAppeals court
OpinionThe New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the prosecutor's grossly improper comments and posing of argumentative questions during cross-examination of the defendant did not deprive defendant of a fair trial: "We stress, however, that the prosecutor's conduct at trial left much to be desired. In addition to making inappropriate comments and posing argumentative questions during cross-examination of defendant, including purported questions that actually served only to give the jury a preview of her summation, the prosecutor made two arguments that were manifestly improper. First, although the victim had given no testimony bearing on whether she had seen a scar on defendant's arm, the prosecutor noted that defense counsel had not asked the victim about the scar and then gave her own, unsworn testimony on the subject. Counsel had not asked, the prosecutor explained, '[b]ecause her answer would have been he always had it there.' Second, addressing the element of forcible compulsion, the prosecutor blatantly vouched for the strength of her case by stating as follows: 'I don't know that I've ever said so strongly on another summation that this medical evidence taken together, there is no reasonable view of it that would lead you to the conclusion that that was just merely the consequence of consensual sex.' Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we are persuaded that these grossly improper comments played no role in the jury's verdict."
Determination Year2007
Misconduct TypeTR: Inadmissible
TR: Vouching
C/S EffectNo effect
Pros. Misc. ReportedUKN
Sanction TypeUKN
Web link