Leonard Portuondo, Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility v. Ray Agard (529 U.S. 61)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 6, 2000 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 529 U.S. 61 · 120 S. Ct. 1119
- Decided
- March 6, 2000
- Term
- October Term 1999
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we consider whether it was constitutional for a prosecutor, in her summation, to call the jury’s attention to the fact that the defendant had the opportunity to hear all other witnesses testify and to tailor his testimony accordingly. I Respondent’s trial on 19 sodomy and assault counts and 3 weapons counts ultimately came down to a credibility determination. The alleged victim, Nessa Winder, and her friend, Breda Keegan, testified that respondent physically assaulted, raped, and orally and anally sodomized Winder, and that he threatened both women with a handgun. Respondent testified that he and Winder had engaged in consensual vaginal intercourse. He further testified that during an argument he had with Winder, he struck her once in the face. He denied raping her or threatening either woman with a handgun. During summation, defense counsel charged Winder and Keegan with lying. The prosecutor similarly focused on the credibility of the witnesses. She stressed respondent’s interest in the outcome of the trial, his prior felony conviction, and his prior bad acts. She argued that respondent was a “smooth slick character , . . who had an answer for everything,” App. 45, and that part of his testimony “sound[ed] rehearsed,” id., at 48. Finally, over defense objection, the prosecutor remarked: “You know, ladies and…
Excerpt of a 27,325-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.