Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court held that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of three key witnesses by repeatedly stating during closing argument that they were “right” or “correct.” Because the case largely depended on those witnesses’ credibility and involved little corroborating physical evidence, the prosecutorial misconduct constituted plain error. The court reversed Whittle’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of the State's three key witnesses by repeatedly stating that they were "right" or "correct" during closing argument.
- Whether the improper vouching constituted plain error requiring reversal of Whittle's convictions and a new trial.
Holdings
- The prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of Biddle, Stewart, and Owens because the repeated assertions that their testimony was "right" or "correct" went beyond reasonable inferences from the trial evidence and implied the prosecutor's personal endorsement of their truthfulness.
- The improper vouching was plain error under Wainwright because it was a basic, serious, and fundamental defect that deprived Whittle of a substantial right and jeopardized the fairness and integrity of the trial.
Key quotations
“Improper vouching occurs when the prosecutor implies some personal superior knowledge, beyond that logically inferred from the evidence at trial, that the witness testified truthfully.” (243)
“The prosecutor’s continuous vouching helped to create an aura of credibility surrounding the witnesses, from which it became easier for the prosecutor to argue Whittle’s guilt to the jury.” (248)
“As a result, the prosecutor’s improper vouching was so fundamental and serious that it deprived Whittle of his right to a fair trial.” (249)
Factual background
The prosecution's case arose from a shooting in Southbridge, Delaware, in which Donald Williams was killed by gunfire directed at a vehicle. The State's principal evidence came from Cammellia Stewart, Mia Biddle, and Namil Owens, whose testimony contained significant contradictions and inconsistencies; only Biddle testified that she saw Whittle shooting. Physical evidence was limited: no firearm was introduced, although ballistics evidence linked several bullets to the same gun. During closing argument, the prosecutor repeatedly stated that the three witnesses were "right" or "correct," including on the central issue of Whittle's identity as the shooter.
Procedural history
A Superior Court jury convicted Whittle of second-degree murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, first-degree reckless endangering, and possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. Whittle did not object to the prosecutor's closing argument at trial. The Supreme Court of Delaware reviewed the alleged prosecutorial misconduct for plain error, reversed the judgment, and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
The Superior Court must conduct a new trial.