Abstract
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument during the penalty phase of capital trials can be defined as “any disparaging or prejudicial statements calculated to influence the jury to consider improper factors in determining life in prison or the death penalty” (Gaskill, 1991, p. 13). Improper statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument may jeopardize a defendant's right to a fair trial. While acknowledging such statements as misconduct, courts sometimes permit them on the theory that the presence of improper statements in closing argument would not change the juries' verdicts and therefore are not fundamentally unfair (Chapman v. California, 1967). The present study examined whether improper statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument during the penalty phase of a capital trial would result in more death penalty recommendations. Three hundred and twenty jury-eligible individuals viewed a videotape based on the penalty phase of an actual capital trial (Brooks v. State, 1977). Individuals exposed to improper statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument recommended the death penalty significantly more often than those not exposed to the statements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Anitas, S. (1996). The status of victim impact statements in Ohio capital offense sentencing. Ohio State Law Journal, 57, 235–255.
Bilaisis, V. (1983). Harmless error: Abettor of courtroom misconduct. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74, 457–475.
Brooks v. Kemp, 762 F.2d. 1383 (11th Cir., 1985).
Brooks v. State, 238 GA 529 S.E. 2d. (1977).
Butler, P. (1995). Racially based jury nullification: Black power in the criminal justice system. Yale Law Journal, 105, 677–725.
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985).
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).
Costanzo, M., & Costanzo, S. (1992). Jury decision making the capital penalty phase: Legal assumptions, empirical findings, and a research agenda. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 185–201.
Costanzo, M., & Peterson, J. (1994). Attorney persuasion in the capital penalty phase: A content analysis of closing arguments. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 125–147.
Darden v. Wainwright, 106 S. Ct. (1986).
Diamond S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1994). Empirical evidence and the death penalty: Past, present, and future. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 177–197.
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982).
Edwards, H. T. (1995). To err is human, but not always harmless: When should legal error be tolerated? New York University Law Review, 70, 1167–1228.
Fleming v. State, 240 GA 142 S.E. 2d. (1977).
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Gaskill, J. S. (1991). Prosecutorial misconduct in trial: The improper attempt to influence the jury. CACJ Forum, 18, 12–25.
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 253 (1976).
Haney, C., & Logan, D. D. (1994). Broken promise: The Supreme Court's response to social science research on capital punishment. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 75–100.
Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582 (5th Cir., 1969).
Hitchcock v. Dugger, 107 S. Ct. 1821 (1987).
Hovey v. Superior Court, Cal.3d 1 (1980).
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976).
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 536 (1978).
Logan, D. A. (1986). Pleading for life: An analysis of penalty phase final arguments. In M. G. Millman (Ed.), California death penalty defense manual. Los Angeles: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.
Luginbuhl, J., & Burkhead, M. (1994). Sources of bias and arbitrariness in the capital trial. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 103–124.
Moran, G. (1986). Harmless error. APA Monitor, 17, 11.
Mulholland, C. (1995). Sentencing criminals: The constitutionality of victim impact statements. Missouri Law Review, 60, 731–748.
Payne v. Tennessee, 498 U.S. 21 (1991).
People v. Milner, 45 Cal.3d 227, 255 (1988).
People v. Patino, 95 Cal. App.3d 11 (1979).
Platania, J., Moran, G., & Cutler, B. (1994). Prosecutorial misconduct during the penalty phase of capital trials: Harmless error? The Champion, 1994(July), 19–21.
Posner, A. (1984). Victim impact statements and restitution: Making the punishment fit the victim. Brooklyn Law Review, 50, 301–338.
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976).
Shostak, B. H. (1991). Harmless error quickly revisited. The Champion, 1991(September/October), 12–13.
Skipper v. South Carolina, 106 S. Ct. 1669 (1986).
State v. Combs 581, N.E.2d. (1991).
Tabak, R. (1986). The death of fairness: The arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty in the 1980's. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 14, 798–838.
Thompson, W. (1989). Death qualification after Wainwright v. Witt and Lockhart v. McCree. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 183–215.
Tucker v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1293 (11th Cir., 1986).
United States v. Morris, 568 F.2d 396 (5th Cir., 1978).
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).
Willie v. Maggio, 737 F.2d at 1391 (1982).
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
Zant v. Stephens, 250 Ga. 97, 297 S.E.2d. (1982).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Platania, J., Moran, G. Due Process and the Death Penalty: The Role of Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument in Capital Trials. Law Hum Behav 23, 471–486 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022364132399
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022364132399