State v. Omar Bridges, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-0806-07T4 (September 8, 2010) - Convictions reversed.
"Defendant argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct throughout the trial, and that misconduct requires a new trial. Specifically, defendant highlights comments made by the prosecutor in the presence of the jury that questioned defense counsel's knowledge of the rules of procedure and evidence, thereby demeaning his competence. Defendant also contends that the prosecutor erred by calling defendant a liar and attempting to have defendant characterize the State's witnesses as liars. In addition, defendant identifies various statements in the summation that bolstered the credibility of the State's witnesses, denigrated defendant and his attorney, and challenged the jury to do their duty and protect society from the scourge of public gunfights. Regrettably, we agree with defendant that this experienced prosecutor engaged in multiple acts of misconduct that cumulatively cannot be countenanced and require a new trial.... At no time did defense counsel object to the comments made by the prosecutor. Defense counsel repeatedly responded directly to the prosecutor in response to objections and sarcastic comments uttered by the prosecutor rather than directing his responses to the trial judge. Occasionally, the judge instructed the jury to ignore the verbal exchanges between counsel. The net effect of these many exchanges, however, was to denigrate the competence of defense counsel. The prosecutor openly stated that defense counsel was not knowledgeable of the rules of procedure or courtroom conduct. There are a variety of ways to legitimally undermine a defense; denigrating the competence of defense counsel is not one of them.... Defendant testified at trial. Our review of his testimony suggests that the jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant was a smart aleck, who treated the many serious charges against him in a cavalier fashion. This attitude, however, did not serve as the basis for the prosecutor's sustained attempt to have defendant characterize the State's witnesses as liars and to seek an acknowledgement from defendant that he, too, was a liar.... A prosecutor is barred from asking a defendant to characterize the truth or falsity of another witness. The prosecutor may also not call the defendant a liar. Doing so not only disparages the defendant but also reveals to the jury the prosecutor's assessment of the credibility of a particular witness. The prosecutor did both in this trial.... Defendant also argues that the prosecutor improperly bolstered the credibility of Officer Patinho, and issued an improper 'call to arms.' It is a close question whether the prosecutor improperly bolstered the credibility of Officer Patinho; we have no doubt, however, that the conclusion of the summation is a prohibited 'call to arms.'... Cumulatively, we have a trial record that disparaged defense counsel and the defense, improperly challenged defendant to characterize the State's witnesses as liars, disparaged defendant as a liar, suggested that the defense wasted the jury's valuable time, and closed with a call for the jury to discharge its duty to society. These cumulative errors by the prosecutor raise grave doubts that defendant received a fair trial."
