Commonwealth v. Grinkley
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1DissentBerry, J.
As the majority notes, the prosecutor’s *812closing argument was laden with fundamentally unfair and prejudicial statements1 — a number of which were similar to those that drew criticism to the prosecutor and a forewarning of impropriety from this court in Commonwealth v. Deloney, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 53 (2003).2 Given the host of prosecutorial errors in the closing, in my opinion, the defendant’s due process rights to a fair trial under art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution were tread upon.
It is the government’s obligation…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Sullivan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.