In
Sate of Oregon v. Farokhrany, (OR App., Oct. 23, 2013), the Oregon Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have given a curative instruction after comments by the prosecutor in the trial of an Iranian Muslim defendant charged with use of cocaine with two high schoolers and the sexual groping of one of them. As described by the court:
During voir dire, the prosecutor engaged potential jurors in a discussion about their views regarding the prosecution calling only one witness to prove a fact. The prosecutor contrasted for the potential jurors a scenario that he asserted "was out of either Iran or Saudi Arabia" where an alleged rape victim was required to produce five male witnesses to prove the rape. One juror purported to correct the prosecutor, stating that the prosecutor was describing Sharia law, a religious law, not the legal system of a country.
Explaining its reversal of defendant's convictions, the appeals court said:
because one likely effect of the prosecutor's comments was to suggest to jurors that men from countries that follow Sharia law feel free to commit sexual offenses as long as the necessary number of male witnesses are not present, it was incumbent on the trial court to neutralize the likely effect of the prosecutor's comments and remind the jurors that appeals to social, ethnic, or religious bias could not substitute for reason and evidence.
Blogtown reports on the decision.
