Defendant's Conviction is Reversed when Appeals Court Rules Prosecutorial Misconduct Where Prosecution Attempted to Define "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" by Using a Jigsaw Puzzle

A recent California Court of Appeal decision, People v. Katzenberger, held that there was prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor used an incomplete jigsaw puzzle to show how ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ works.

The prosecution’s Power Point presentation consisted of eight puzzle pieces forming a picture of the Statue of Liberty. The first six pieces came onto the screen sequentially, leaving two additional pieces missing. The prosecutor argued it was possible to know what was depicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" even without the missing pieces. The prosecutor then added the two missing pieces to show the picture was in fact the Statue of Liberty. The trial court overruled defendant's objection to the presentation. On appeal, the Defendant claimed that reversal is required because the prosecutor's Power Point presentation was prosecutorial misconduct belittling the reasonable doubt standard. The Court of Appeals agreed.

As the California Supreme Court recently explained, "The standards governing review of misconduct claims are settled.” A prosecutor who uses deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury commits misconduct, and such actions require reversal under the federal Constitution when they infect the trial with such "'unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.'" (People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703, 733.) Under state law, a prosecutor who uses such methods commits misconduct even when those actions do not result in a fundamentally unfair trial. In this case, it is clear that the prosecution used methods used by the prosecutor (using an incomplete iconic image to distort the view of “beyond a reasonable doubt”) were deceptive.

The Appeals court cautioned that prosecutors who are tempted to enliven closing argument with visual aids that using such aids to illustrate the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is dangerous and unwise. The California Supreme Court has recognized the difficulty and peril inherent in such a task, and has discouraged 'experiments' by trial courts in defining the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. By a parity of reasoning, similar perils undoubtedly attend a prosecutor's attempt to reduce the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a mere line on a graph, chart (or Power Point presentation).

In all criminal cases, it is important to have an experienced Southern California criminal appeals attorney on your side. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 40 years experience handling criminal and appellate matters. Our attorneys have the skills and expertise to provide you with the best possible defense. Prosecutors often engage in deceptive and reprehensible methods to persuade the jury and it is the duty of a good defense attorney to object and file a timely appeal. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-888-749-0034 or through our website at www.wklaw.com.