Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears argument that prosecutor's closing crossed line in Commonwealth v. Hamilton
Summary
In an appellate hearing, defense counsel challenged a prosecutor's closing remark as inflammatory and urged reversal; the Commonwealth said the comment was supported by the evidence and the judge instructed jurors that argument is not evidence. The court took the matter under advisement.
BOSTON — Defense counsel in Commonwealth v. Christopher Hamilton argued to a three-justice panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court that a prosecutor's early closing remark during trial was improper and warrants reversal, while the Commonwealth told the court the statement was a supported summary of the evidence. The panel took the case under advisement.
The dispute centers on a sentence in the prosecutor's closing that defense counsel said suggested the defendant "simply could not get enough," a phrasing the defense called inflammatory and not necessary. "Saying Christopher Hamilton simply could not get enough, I think, is an inappropriate statement regardless…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
