context: Egregious misconduct may or may not be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the convictions, depending on the efficacy of the action taken by the judge to eradicate the apparent prejudice.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 707 S.E.2d 56, 57-58
citation_a.parenthetical: where the trial court sustained the defense objection to PowerPoint slides declaring "Defendant's Story Is a Lie" and asserting that "People Lie When They Are Guilty" and gave an "immediate corrective action, ordering that the slides be taken down" and an adequate curative instruction
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Dolphy v. State, 288 Ga. 705, 707 S.E.2d 56, 57-58 (2011) (where the trial court sustained the defense objection to PowerPoint slides declaring “Defendant’s Story Is a Lie” and asserting that “People Lie When They Are Guilty” and gave an “immediate corrective action, ordering that the slides be taken down” and an adequate curative instruction); cf. State v. Sucharew, 205 Am. 16, 66 P.3d 59, 64 (Ct.App.2003) (finding no abuse of discretion in allowing a prosecutor to use a PowerPoint that consisted of pictures provided in discovery and later admitted into evidence at trial and descriptive text echoing the prosecutor’s oral statements in opening to which there was no objection); but cf. In the Matter of Personal Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wash. 2d 696, 286 P.3d 673, 678 (2012) (reversing convictions based on the prosecutor’s use of a PowerPoint in summation that included a “mug shot” of the defendant with accompanying text declaring him guilty on the ground that “the misconduct was so flagrant and ill intentioned that an instruction would not have cured the prejudice”).
citation_b.signal: but cf.
citation_b.identifier: 286 P.3d 673, 678
citation_b.parenthetical: reversing convictions based on the prosecutor's use of a PowerPoint in summation that included a "mug shot" of the defendant with accompanying text declaring him guilty on the ground that "the misconduct was so flagrant and ill intentioned that an instruction would not have cured the prejudice"
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Dolphy v. State, 288 Ga. 705, 707 S.E.2d 56, 57-58 (2011) (where the trial court sustained the defense objection to PowerPoint slides declaring “Defendant’s Story Is a Lie” and asserting that “People Lie When They Are Guilty” and gave an “immediate corrective action, ordering that the slides be taken down” and an adequate curative instruction); cf. State v. Sucharew, 205 Am. 16, 66 P.3d 59, 64 (Ct.App.2003) (finding no abuse of discretion in allowing a prosecutor to use a PowerPoint that consisted of pictures provided in discovery and later admitted into evidence at trial and descriptive text echoing the prosecutor’s oral statements in opening to which there was no objection); but cf. In the Matter of Personal Restraint of Glasmann, 175 Wash. 2d 696, 286 P.3d 673, 678 (2012) (reversing convictions based on the prosecutor’s use of a PowerPoint in summation that included a “mug shot” of the defendant with accompanying text declaring him guilty on the ground that “the misconduct was so flagrant and ill intentioned that an instruction would not have cured the prejudice”).