The defense bar is arguing to death the "Central Park Rapist" in voir dire (and some in closing) in cases where I have a confession. (to remind you its the five young men who confessed on video to the rape and were later proved innocent by DNA testing) I am certain that I used to have a case that said it was improper argument for defense to argue, "people wrongfully convicted in other cases". I can't find the case so any help would be appreciated.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the prosecutor in the case insists to this day that the DNA didn't prove innocence; it proved that another guy was involved. Since the victim doesn't remember a thing, we lose out....

Rob, the confessions also were voluntary, but that isn't how it was reported by Barry Scheck.

So, if the defense can argue innocence from other cases, can the State argue that 150,000 people are in prison, so there must be some guilty people out there?

The defense seems to be arguing that a voluntary confession can be false. That is a fact (though generally extremely unlikely) and thus properly the subject of a defendant's argument. Whether or not it was a fact in Central Park is another issue. But Johnson, 698 S.W.2d 154 states that the attorneys for both sides must confine their arguments to the record. Thus, references to events not shown by the evidence should be objectionable as outside the record. E.g., Escobedo, 620 S.W.2d 590. There is an exception to this rule for matters of common knowledge, and both sides like to make use of that exception. I think the defense could say something along the lines "is it possible my client would say was he guilty when he was not, we know there are instances where that has happened". Just keep them from pointing out when or where it might have happened.

The scope of voir dire is probably broader. Defense attorneys always want to mention stuff then that the jurors will never hear during the trial proper. If you find a method to stop that, then let us all know.

I am sure the case you recall exists. It is just hard to find cases where the defendant argued upon appeal that a particular argument should have been allowed.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 05-13-03 at .]

I should think that a pretrial motion in limine, preventing the mention of specific cases, rather than legal theories, would be appropriate.

For a very interesting article by Ann Coulter concerning this case, please go to: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20021017.shtml

Thanks for the link. She does a great job of using details, often ignored in news articles, to make her case. This is the difficulty of arguing an issue in the media -- getting equal time for rebuttal.