A recent decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues a warning to prosecutors who use sarcasm in their closing arguments. The judges determined that the prosecutor's statements "seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings," and therefore required the case to be retried.
U.S. v. Sanchez concerns the arrest in 2008 of Arturo Sanchez, a U.S. citizen who was found by border police to have 64 pounds of cocaine in his vehicle. Sanchez said that he was paid to carry the drugs into the U.S. but claimed that he did so only because Mexican drug traffickers had threatened to harm his family if he didn't help them.
At trial, the prosecutor in his rebuttal to the defense attorney's closing argument said sarcastically to jurors, "[W]hy don't we send a memo to all drug traffickers" saying "when you hire someone to drive a load, tell them [to say] that they were forced to do it. . . . [T]hey'll get away with it if they just say their family was threatened."
The appellate court decided this statement was improper because it suggested to jurors that finding Sanchez not guilty would send the message that drug mules could avoid prosecution if they claimed they were merely trying to protect their families. The prosecutor's implication, the court said, was that Sanchez had to be convicted to send the "right" message.
Such an argument, however, violates the rules of trial procedure. When determining whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty, jurors are supposed to consider only the facts of each case, the relevant laws, and instructions given by the judge. The implications of conviction or acquittal - such as any message that might be sent to people considering criminal activity - should remain outside the scope of jurors' deliberations.
As stated above, Sanchez was not acquitted by this ruling. Instead, he faces a new trial, in which jurors will consider the facts of the case without prejudicial comments by prosecutors.
