State v. Dimitri Polanco Romero

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Defense counsel argued that the 'could have' standard for prejudice is superior to the 'would have' standard because the latter creates an impossible burden of absolute certainty regarding jury verdicts.
2. The defense requested clarification distinguishing preserved prosecutorial error, which should be reviewed under harmless error standards, from unpreserved cumulative error, which requires proving a denial of a fair trial.
3. State counsel contended that prosecutorial error is fundamentally a due process violation that must be either pervasive enough to dominate the trial or so egregious in a single instance as to deny a fair trial.
4. The State argued that unpreserved claims under the third prong of Escalante require showing injustice so obvious that prejudice analysis is unnecessary, a standard incompatible with the 'could have' test used for preserved errors.
5. State counsel maintained that the conviction should be affirmed because strong, undisputed evidence linking the defendant to the crime remained even after excluding the alleged prosecutorial errors.
6. Defense counsel asserted that leading questions constitute a form of prosecutorial vouching and that the trial was fundamentally unfair because the prosecutor put words into witnesses' mouths without objection.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT43M21S · Captions available