People v. Petrucelli
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
Viewed in its context with the entire case (United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150, 240), the prejudicial and sometimes unethical conduct of the prosecuting attorney has nullified this conviction. While cross-examining a principal defense witness, he remarked, “ I don’t have to believe him. I believe Joan ” (the principal prosecution witness). His summation called the defendant and a defense witness, and by implication all of the defense witnesses, a ‘ ‘ bunch of thieves ’ ’. The expression by a prosecutor of his personal opinion of the witnesses’ credibility is improper…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- People v. MalkinNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- People v. WrightAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
3Cited by18 opinions
- People v. ZimmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- People v. GriffithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- People v. GorghanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- People v. GrahamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
- Petrucelli v. SmithDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1982
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.