Remember "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him"? According to "Prosecutorial Disclaimers" at Legal Ethics Forum, last week in Parker v. Matthews, the U.S. Supreme Court rebuked the 6th circuit for thinking that the following closing remark by a prosecutor failed to correct the prosecutor's earlier extended closing argument suggesting that the defendant, his attorney, and a psychiatrist colluded to fabricate a defense:
“And that’s not to say that Mr. Busse is unethical. Not at all. He is entitled to the best defense he can get, but that’s the only defense he has, what the doctor has to say, and that’s not to say that the doctor gets on the stand and perjures himself. He’s telling you the truth. He wouldn’t perjure himself for anything. He’s telling you the truth, Ladies and Gentlemen.”
Mark Tushnet "Brutus is an honorable man" at Balkinization calls the Court's analysis simplistic. Milan Markovic's Legal Ethics Forum post goes further:
I think there are strong grounds to believe that the prosecutor violated Model Rule 3.4(e), which the Court did not cite in its opinion. The prosecutor seems to have alluded to collusion where no facts supported such a charge and also opined on the credibility of the psychiatrist and the guilt of the accused.
In any case, more evidence that your 9th grade teacher was right after all. Shakespeare is relevant.
