People v. Truman
Key Takeaways
- 1 State's closing argument characterizing video as 'grinding' was a reasonable inference, not reversible error.
- 2 Prosecutor's 'audacity' remark responding to defense counsel's own argument did not impugn counsel's character.
- 3 Relevant for criminal defense attorneys challenging prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments under plain error or ineffective assistance frameworks.
Summary
Corey Truman was convicted by a Cook County jury of child pornography production and distributing harmful material, receiving an aggregate seven-year prison sentence. On appeal, Truman raised two prosecutorial misconduct claims arising from closing argument, both of which were forfeited at trial and reviewed under plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel standards.
First, Truman argued the State misstated the evidence by describing a video as depicting a woman 'grinding' or 'dry humping' the minor victim. The First District rejected this claim, finding the characterization was at least a reasonable inference from the video evidence, which showed the woman bending over and moving her hips against the victim. Even assuming impropriety, the court held that the trial court's standard jury instructions — that closing arguments are not evidence — cured any potential prejudice. Second, Truman argued the State improperly impugned defense counsel's integrity by remarking that counsel had the 'audacity' to ask the jury to 'do the right thing.' The court found no error, holding the comment was a direct and permissible response to defense counsel's own closing argument using that same phrase, and did not attribute fabrication, deception, or ethical misconduct to counsel.
Because no error was found on either issue, neither plain error nor Strickland ineffective assistance could be established. The court affirmed both convictions. Practitioners should note that forfeiture remains a significant barrier and that curative jury instructions continue to carry substantial weight in defeating prosecutorial misconduct claims.
Key Holdings
1. A prosecutor's characterization of video evidence during closing argument does not constitute clear or obvious error where the description is at least a reasonable inference from the evidence the jury itself viewed.
2. Standard jury instructions that closing arguments are not evidence can cure potentially improper prosecutorial comments about the evidence, defeating plain error review.
3. A prosecutor's rebuttal comment that defense counsel had the 'audacity' to urge the jury to 'do the right thing' is not improper impugning of counsel's character where it directly responds to defense counsel's own closing argument and does not attribute fabrication, deception, or ethical wrongdoing to counsel.
4. Where no underlying error is established in a closing argument challenge, neither prong of plain error nor an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland can succeed.