The trial of a drug case is usually a rather heated environment where advocates will test the bounds of fair play.  On many occasions the government’s lawyer will exceed the parameters of the law during summations.  Where it had been determined that a prosecutor has offended principles of due process during closing comments, appellate court will analyze the record with a careful eye to determine if the case should be reversed.  Some of the factors the appellate courts will consider is whether objections were timely made, whether the improper comments were promptly withdrawn, and whether the court struck the comments and instructed the jury to disregard the comments.

On many occasions, the testimony of the defendant and/or the defense witnesses are pitted against the testimony of an investigating and/or arresting police officers.  Under those circumstances, credibility is a highly sensitive issue for the jury’s determination.  As a result, the government’s comments that investigating or arresting police officers are more credible than ordinary citizens should not be received with favor.  The following comments given by the government’s lawyers during summation may be considered improper:

•    The police office has no stake in the outcome of the case.
•    The police officer has no motive to lie.
•    The police officer is not interested in scoring points by falsely accusing somebody.
•    A police officer cannot lie because of the “magnitude of charges” that could be made against him.
•    A police office will not jeopardize his 25 year career by perjuring himself.
•    A police officer who testifies falsely will have his career ended “in a minute”.
•    A police officer has nothing to gain by making a  false accusation.