The Army Court of Criminal Appeals issued a Memorandum Opinion on 9 December 2011, in the case of United States v. Perterson. The opinion is worth reading for its discussion of prosecution over-reaching in aggravation witnesses, cross-examination of defense witnesses, and argument. The defense did not object to the prosecution argument, but as the opinion notes, dealt with the argument in their own argument. The court finds error with the trial counsel’s argument and the military judge’s response. Here is the AOE (which was evaluated using a plain error analysis):
WHETHER IT WAS PLAIN ERROR WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL INFLAMED THE PASSIONS OF THE PANEL BY IMPLYING THAT CHILDREN ON ARMY INSTALLATIONS EVERYWHERE ARE IN DANGER OF BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED BY APPELLANT AND ARGUING THAT APPELLANT SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR ACTUALLY HARMING CHILDREN.
In discussing the prosecutors role the court begins: