Reed v. State, X--414
| Decision Date | 23 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. X--414,X--414 |
| Citation | 333 So.2d 524 |
| Parties | Lee REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Samuel S. Jacobson, of Datz, Jacobson & Dusek, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Once again the extensive time and money expended in a criminal proceeding must go 'down the drain' because of the over zealous argument of one prosecutor. 1
Appellant was charged and found guilty of the sale of marijuana. Trial evidence disclosed a single transaction between appellant and a police officer. No evidence of any character was adduced as to appellant having been previously engaged in the sale of drugs to any other persons. However, the prosecuting attorney argued to the jury as follows:
'You have got a tough decision to make in this case. It's not an easy one. The last ten years drug trafficking and drug abuse in this country has skyrocketed. It's a spreading disease. Drug abuse has spread down from colleges to high schools down to grade schools. You read in papers now about children in grade schools, grammar schools using drugs, and where do those drugs come from? From people who are willing to make money off of them.
In addition, the prosecuting attorney, in commenting as to defense counsel's role, argued:
'Mr. Jacobson is the Defense Counsel in this case. His responsibility as the Defense Counsel is to defend someone charged with a crime. That's his duty. His responsibility in this case is to provide the best defense possible for his client, and he's doing just that: The best defense possible.
'Mr. Jacobson doesn't share any guilt that his client may have; he's merely doing his job in this case. . . .'
The prosecuting attorney also injected his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. State
...Harris v. State, 414 So.2d 557, 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Buckhann v. State, 356 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Reed v. State, 333 So.2d 524, 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Price v. State, 267 So.2d 39, 40 (Fla. 4th DCA When I considered the motion to hear the case en banc, it seemed to me t......
-
Childers v. State
...Harris v. State, 414 So.2d 557, 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Buckhann v. State, 356 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Reed v. State, 333 So.2d 524, 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Price v. State, 267 So.2d 39, 40 (Fla. 4th DCA When I considered the motion to hear the case en banc, it seemed to me t......
-
McGee v. State
...intention of departing from our prior decisions on this point. See, Cochran v. State, 280 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Reed v. State, 333 So.2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Simpson v. State, 352 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Melton v. State, 402 So.2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Cooper v. State, ......
-
Conley v. State
...a prosecutor's personal beliefs about the guilt or innocence, or the credibility of an accused are clearly improper. Reed v. State, 333 So.2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Singletary v. State, 483 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Blackburn v. State, 447 So.2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). However, again u......