PEOPLE OF MI V CALVIN HOWARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 3, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 229138
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 99-168634-FH
CALVIN HOWARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Neff and Saad, JJ.
SAAD, J. (concurring).
I concur in the result and write separately because I disagree with the majority’s
observations that the prosecutor’s remarks, “come dangerously close to exceeding the bounds of
permissible argument.” I also disagree with the majority’s assertion that the prosecutor’s
comments during closing argument, coupled with her voir dire questioning, “border on
impermissible bolstering of a witness’ credibility.”
The prosecutor here did not “vouch” for the credibility of the police witness, nor did the
prosecutor make any suggestion that she had some special knowledge of the veracity of the
witness. Rather, the prosecutor made permissible comments concerning the expertise of the
witness as a narcotics officer. A prosecutor’s remarks concerning the special expertise and
“street knowledge” of a police officer is not tantamount to “vouching” for the veracity or
truthfulness of the witness. For example, in People v Ramsdell, 230 Mich App 386, 404; 585
NW2d 1 (1998), defendant objected to the following comments made by the prosecutor during
opening statement:
And, the correction officers that work behind the bars, that don’t have weapons,
there’s [sic] a lot more prisoners than they are [sic]. They’re highly trained.
They’re trained to observe. They’re trained to be watchful; to record things that
happen. And, they will be telling you about that. They’re supposed to be very
observant about things. Subtle things that may occur.
In analyzing the issue, our Court pointed out the distinction between impermissible vouching and
appropriate comment on the expertise of police officials:
The remarks at issue were not improper. A prosecutor may not vouch for
witness credibility or suggest that the government has some special knowledge
-1-
that a witness will testify truthfully. However, the remarks at issue did not
improperly vouch for the credibility of prosecution witnesses, but rather provided
a reasonable explanation for why correctional officers testifying on behalf of the
prosecution would have been alert to occurrences that would likely escape the
notice of others. [Id. (citation omitted).]
Similarly, here, the prosecutor did not vouch for the veracity of the police officer, but
merely commented on the officer’s knowledge and expertise regarding drug sales that informed
his testimony.
Accordingly, I regard these remarks as permissible observations and legitimate comment
by the prosecutor, not improper vouching.1
/s/ Henry William Saad
1
See, generally, anno: Propriety and prejudicial effect of comments by counsel vouching for
credibility of witness – state cases, 45 ALR 4th 602.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
