Due process and the death penalty: The role of prosecutorial misconduct inclosing argument in capital trials

Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument during the penalty phase of ca pital trials can be defined as "any disparaging or prejudicial statements c alculated to influence the jury to consider improper factors in determining life in prison or the death penalty" (Gaskill, 1991, p. 13). Improper stat ements made by the prosecutor during closing argument may jeopardize a defe ndant's right to a fair trial. While acknowledging such statements as misco nduct, courts sometimes permit them on the theory that the presence of impr oper statements in closing argument would not change the juries' verdicts a nd therefore are not fundamentally unfair (Chapman v. California, 1967). Th e present study examined whether improper statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument during the penalty phase of a capital trial would resu lt in more death penalty recommendations. Three hundred and twenty jury-eli gible individuals viewed a videotape based on the penalty phase of an actua l capital trial (Brooks v. State, 1977). Individuals exposed to improper st atements made by the prosecutor in closing argument recommended the death p enalty significantly more often than those not exposed to the statements.