ROBERT JAMES WASHINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Robert Washington appeals his convictions for sexual battery of a child, claiming prosecutorial misconduct. The Florida appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial based on the prosecutor's improper closing argument comparing the defense to Nazi propaganda and the "big lie" theory.
The prosecutor's closing argument constituted egregious and prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct. The statement was unquestionably improper because it accused the defendant of lying and constituted an improper statement of opinion by the prosecutor. The cumulative effect required reversal and remand for a new trial.
[1] A prosecutor's statement in closing argument that the defense is a "big lie," comparing it to Joseph Goebbels' propaganda theory, constitutes egregious and prejudicial pr…
[2] It is unquestionably improper for a prosecutor to state that the defendant has lied.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is "unquestionably improper" for a prosecutor to state that the defendant has lied.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle violated by the prosecutor's closing argument
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWashington was convicted of two counts of sexual battery on a child under twelve and two counts of sexual activity with a child over twelve but under …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Credibility Contest cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Robert Washington appeals from his convictions for two counts of sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve and two counts of sexual activity with a child over the age of twelve but under the age of eighteen, all involving the same victim. We reverse and remand for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct.
Washington raises two issues on appeal. First, we address a statement by a prospective juror during voir dire. The prospective juror explained that she was predisposed to Washington’s guilt because she had been the victim of child abuse herself. Defense counsel moved to strike the entire venire. The court denied the motion and gave a lengthy curative instruction, which we conclude was adequate. It was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion.
Next, we consider a statement the prosecutor made in closing argument, apparently to bolster a difficult case. The victim, Washington’s step-daughter, was nineteen years old at the time of trial. She testified that the two incidents of capital sexual battery occurred at night in a small bedroom where she slept with five siblings in two beds. The victim stated that the episodes lasted twenty minutes each and that none of the other children awoke during these events. She had given inconsistent testimony as to how these events occurred at a prior deposition. She did not report the incidents, although she had immediately reported similar incidents involving her step-grandfather. The state then called the victim’s younger sister as a Williams1 rule witness. She testified to “inappropriate touching” by Washington on several occasions. She also had made no report.
Washington testified that none of these events had happened. His wife testified that the family lived in a small two-bedroom house and that she never observed anything that would support the girls’ accusations.
Thus, the case came down to a credibility contest, with Washington and his wife opposing the two sisters. Against this backdrop, the prosecutor said in closing:
Joseph Goebbels, who was a propaganda minister for Germany back at the time of Adolf Hitler, had a theory. He believed that you should lie to the people but that you shouldn’t lie with small lies because you can get caught in small lies. What you should do is you should lie big, come up with a big lie because that’s something that you might be able to have the people buy is the big lie. Of course, at that time it was that the Jews were responsible for everything that was wrong in the world and they should be exterminated.
Well, the defense in this case is nothing but a big lie.
Defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court denied the motion.
In the context of this case, it is difficult for us to perceive a more egregious and prejudicial statement. It is “unquestionably improper” for a prosecutor to state that the defendant has lied. O’Callaghan v. State, 429 So. 2d 691, 696 (Fla.1983). These remarks can be interpreted in no other way. Additionally, it constitutes an improper statement of opinion by the prosecutor. See Singletary v. State, 483 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). As a result of the prosecutor’s highly improper remarks, we have no choice but to reverse Washington’s judgment and sentence. As Judge Blue stated in his specially concurring opinion in Luce v. State, 642 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), “If attorneys do not recognize improper argument, they should not be in a courtroom.”
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur. . Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zack v. State, 911 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2005)…a liar, erroneously told the jurors they were acting on behalf of the community, and made inappropriate “golden rule” arguments. A. “Liar” It is “unquestionably improper” for a prosecutor to state that the defendant has lied. Washington v. State, 687 So. 2d 279, 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (quoting O’Callaghan v. State, 429 So. 2d 691, 696 (Fla.1983)). This is especially true in an instance where the defendant takes the stand in his own defense because the prosecutor’s reference to the defendant as a liar encro…
-
Colsson D. Ford v. State, 702 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…6); see also Knight v. State, 672 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). If the reference to “rapist talk” constituted the prosecutor’s opinion, it was an improper statement of opinion without basis in fact or in the evidence. See Washington v. State, 687 So. 2d 279, 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Finally, during closing argument, the prosecutor referred to the movie “Nine and a Half Weeks,” which defendant had testified was the model for the consensual sexual activities between him and the complainant. The prosecuto…
-
Connelly v. State, 744 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…f times.” The gist of this argument was that Connelly should be found guilty based on the prosecutor’s opinion of his “willingness to he.” “It is ‘unquestionably improper’ for a prosecutor to state that the defendant has lied.” Washington v. State, 687 So. 2d 279, 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citing O’Callaghan v. State, 429 So. 2d 691, 696 (Fla.1983)). Therefore, without question, the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument require reversal. Prosecutor Migliore’s inquiry on cross-examination concerning Con…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- O'Callaghan v. State, 429 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1983)
- Singletary v. State, 483 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Luce v. State, 642 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)