U.S. v. Halpin, 71 M.J. 477

Military Justice Personnel: Prosecution Function: Trial Counsel

1. during sentencing argument, the trial counsel is at liberty to strike hard, but not foul, blows; as a zealous advocate for the government, trial counsel may argue the evidence of record, as well as all reasonable inferences fairly derived from such evidence

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Argument

1. during sentencing argument, the trial counsel is at liberty to strike hard, but not foul, blows; as a zealous advocate for the government, trial counsel may argue the evidence of record, as well as all reasonable inferences fairly derived from such evidence

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. in assessing prejudice under the plain error test where prosecutorial misconduct has been alleged, an appellate court looks at the cumulative impact of any prosecutorial misconduct on appellant’s substantial rights and the fairness and integrity of his trial; the best approach to the prejudice determination with respect to findings involves balancing three factors: (1) the severity of the misconduct, (2) the measures adopted to cure the misconduct, and (3) the weight of the evidence supporting the conviction; in the context of an allegedly improper sentencing argument, an appellate court considers whether trial counsel’s comments, taken as a whole, were so damaging that it cannot be confident that appellant was sentenced on the basis of the evidence alone
2. appellant failed to establish that the trial counsel’s sentencing argument prejudiced his substantial rights where the weight of the evidence amply supported the sentence imposed by the panel; appellant’s misconduct could have exposed him to seven years and six months of confinement; trial defense counsel successfully negotiated a pretrial agreement which limited appellant’s confinement exposure to the twelve-month maximum of a special court-martial; and appellant’s actual sentence was ten months of confinement, a bad-conduct discharge, and a reprimand

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. because appellant did not object to trial counsel’s sentencing arguments at trial, an appellate court reviews the propriety of the arguments for plain error; to prevail under a plain error analysis, appellant has the burden of showing, inter alia, that the alleged errors materially prejudiced a substantial right
2. in assessing prejudice under the plain error test where prosecutorial misconduct has been alleged, an appellate court looks at the cumulative impact of any prosecutorial misconduct on appellant’s substantial rights and the fairness and integrity of his trial; the best approach to the prejudice determination with respect to findings involves balancing three factors: (1) the severity of the misconduct, (2) the measures adopted to cure the misconduct, and (3) the weight of the evidence supporting the conviction; in the context of an allegedly improper sentencing argument, an appellate court considers whether trial counsel’s comments, taken as a whole, were so damaging that it cannot be confident that appellant was sentenced on the basis of the evidence alone

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. because appellant did not object to trial counsel’s sentencing arguments at trial, an appellate court reviews the propriety of the arguments for plain error; to prevail under a plain error analysis, appellant has the burden of showing, inter alia, that the alleged errors materially prejudiced a substantial right
2. in assessing prejudice under the plain error test where prosecutorial misconduct has been alleged, an appellate court looks at the cumulative impact of any prosecutorial misconduct on appellant’s substantial rights and the fairness and integrity of his trial; the best approach to the prejudice determination with respect to findings involves balancing three factors: (1) the severity of the misconduct, (2) the measures adopted to cure the misconduct, and (3) the weight of the evidence supporting the conviction; in the context of an allegedly improper sentencing argument, an appellate court considers whether trial counsel’s comments, taken as a whole, were so damaging that it cannot be confident that appellant was sentenced on the basis of the evidence alone