Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appellate Panel Weighs Officer Vouching and Timing of Impeachment in State v. Herrera
Summary
Appellant argued that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object when law‑enforcement testimony vouched for a victim and when the defense was prompted to label witnesses "liars"; the State said counsel’s choices were reasonable strategic decisions and that the evidence would be admissible as impeachment.
Rachel Phillips Ainscough, appellate counsel for Martin Robert Herrera, told the Utah Court of Appeals that trial counsel performed deficiently in three respects, focusing the panel’s attention on what she described as impermissible vouching and improper credibility questioning by the State. "There were 3 instances of improper credibility testimony," Ainscough said, explaining that an officer testified in a way that bolstered the victim and that the State also elicited answers from Herrera that asked him to label witnesses "liars."
Ainscough relied on the court’s recent precedent in cases the parties…
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
