In Adams v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper because she incorrectly led the jury to believe that the judge could fix an errant verdict. During closing argument of Adams’ murder trial, the defense attorney compared the “reasonable doubt” standard to the level of confidence in making the decision to terminate a loved one’s life support. The prosecutor responded that the jury’s verdict was not as “permanent and irrevocable” as that analogy because there were procedures after the trial to protect a defendant’s rights. The jury convicted Adams and he appealed, arguing that the prosecutor’s closing argument regarding “reasonable doubt” was improper because it misstated the law. The appellate court held that the prosecutor’s argument was almost certain to mislead jurors on the importance and finality of the verdict. Though there are venues to challenge a jury’s verdict, those methods are limited in scope and ability to overturn a wrongful conviction. The prosecutor’s comments did not convey this nuance and may have led a jury to return a verdict in hopes that the judiciary would determine if it was correct or not. These improper comments were not cured by an instruction from the judge regarding the proper law governing verdicts. Thus, the court of appeals reversed Adams’ conviction due to the prosecutor’s improper closing argument.
[1] 440 P.3d 337 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
