Can't call them a liar in Iowa.

Court throws out 1995 Polk murder conviction

By FRANK SANTIAGO
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
April 28, 2005
The Iowa Court of Appeals today threw out the first-degree murder conviction of a Des Moines man who claimed he didn't get a fair trial because prosecutors called him a coward several times and a liar.
Jarmaine Allen said the description unfairly swayed jurors against him and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. The court agreed.

"We determine this was an improper attack on Allan's character that was intended to be inflammatory and constituted misconduct," the judges said.

It was the second Polk County case in recent months in which the court overturned a conviction because prosecutors crossed the line.

In November, the appeals court ordered a new trial for Harlan Mott because prosecutors called a group of inmates a bunch of liars.

The court said the statement was the "kind of misconduct expressly condemned" by the court.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said at the time, "We understand that the court is saying, 'Don't be name-calling."

Sarcone was not available for comment Thursday.

Allen was convicted in the revenge shooting death of Jody Stokes in October 1995. The killing led to several gang shootings in the city.

But they ARE liars! They are cowards!!! Can't somebody standup and say truth is the ultimate defense! Glad I am not in IOWA!

So you can get up and say "The testimony they gave is completely untruthful, as evidenced by the testimony and evidence that we presented." But you can't say they lied? Does Iowa have a rule that any testimony given under oath is truthful? How do they ever convict anyone if the prosecutor can't be allowed to argue that lying witnesses are liars?

If htat objection were made in trial, I would respond that I am only making a reasonable inference from the evidence: my evidence says he's guilty, his witnesses say he's not; one side is made up of liars and it's not mine. QED

Well, the article didn't tell us anything about the context. (No shock there)

What if the Defendant didn't take the stand and did nothing to put his character at issue? (Other than the murder.. )

What if the Defendant had priors convictions for false testimony/perjury?

There are a bunch of questions I have about the circumstances that if answered one way would make the court's opinion seem somewhat reasonable, but if answered another would make things quite clear that the court is loony.

I like this article because it hacks me off on so many levels. (both at the writer and at the court)

Here's the opinion:

Jarmaine

Apparently it's not considered kosher in Iowa to call a defendant or a witness what the evidence shows him/her to be; it must offend their farmer sensibilities, poor dears.

How do they feel about Aggie jokes?

"The prosecutor concluded, The defendant was not home at 5:20. He was not asleep. And the alibi he gave to police was a lie. While it was permissible for the prosecutor to summarize the evidence and point out the discrepancies, it was misconduct for the prosecutor to reach the ultimate conclusion that Allen had lied to police. "

BUT:

"Iowa follows the rule that it is improper for a prosecutor to call the defendant a liar, to state the defendant is lying, or to make similar disparaging comments. Notwithstanding this prohibition, a prosecutor is still free to craft an argument that includes reasonable inferences based on the evidence and . . . when a case turns on which of two conflicting stories is true, [to argue that] certain testimony is not believable."

[This message was edited by Philip D Ray on 05-03-05 at .]

I just briefed that issue. Poor defendant did not like the credibility of his witnesses being attacked. Just because they were his relatives they should be believed after all. Of course you should believe that his friend, who died before the trial, confessed to these witnesses that the drugs were his - not the defendant's, even though it was the defendant found in possession not his dead friend. I cited Satterwhite, 858 SW2d 412, 425 (CCA 1993)

Don't forget that we have an equally inane line of cases here in our fair state that say that, when a Def. testifies and directly contradicts a State's witness, you can't ask the Def. on cross whether the State's witness lied to the jury, because that's considered to be argumentative.

Even more ridiculous is that all the cases tell us not to do it, but every single case has held it to be harmless when we do. So if it's always harmless, why is it so wrong? Stupid!

John, how did Aggies get involved in this discussion?

To help John preserve one of his maximum 5 daily posts, I will assist him by pointing out that the previous post had referenced the Iowans "farmer sensibilities."

I guess in Iowa, when the defendant challenges his accusers by saying, "Are you calling me a liar?" he is really hoping that they will say yes. After all, if we have just spent the whole trial proving that he is a felon, it's just not fair to accuse him of lying about it on top of it all.

uuhhh... I think he was talking about the Utah State Aggies. Not the real ones.