People v. Adams, 356 Ill. Dec. 725

Defendant Romney Adams was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance after police found 0.8 grams of cocaine on him during a lawful traffic stop for driving with a suspended license.
Sergeant Boers testified he pulled over Adams, recovered a bag of cocaine from Adams’ pocket, and forwarded it to a crime-scene investigator; a field test indicated cocaine presence.
Forensic scientist Koulis corroborated the substance as cocaine.
Adams testified that he did not drop any cocaine and that the bag on the ground was not in his pocket; he offered an alternative sequence of events alleging police misconduct.
Deputy Schumacher corroborated Boers’ account in rebuttal; the jury convicted Adams and the trial court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Adams argued the prosecutor improperly urged the jury to believe the officers because they would risk their credibility, job, and freedom by lying, though no evidence of such consequences was introduced at trial; the appellate court found plain error, but the Illinois Supreme Court disagreed on that conclusion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s closing argument improperly vouched for officers’ credibility.	Adams asserted the statements inferred officers’ risked careers without trial evidence.	Adams contends the remarks were improper speculation not grounded in evidence.	Improper, but not plain error.
Whether the remarks amounted to plain error given closely balanced evidence.	Appellate court found the error could tip the scales in a close case.	Evidence was closely balanced and the remarks were prejudicial.	Not plain error under the closely balanced prong.
Whether comments about the police report and other officers’ potential testimony were plain error.	These comments were improper speculation.	No plain error since no objection preserved the issue.	Not plain error.
Whether remarks about Adams having two and a half years to prepare his story violated Doyle or otherwise impaired fairness.	Prosecutor implicitly attacked postarrest silence to impeach credibility.	Comment was permissible credibility assessment, not Doyle violation.	Not error; admissible credibility assessment.

People v. Smith, 141 Ill.2d 40 (1990) (prosecutor may not base credibility on evidence not in record)
People v. Clark, 186 Ill.App.3d 109 (1989) (prosecutor may not argue credibility based on status of witness as police)
People v. Fields, 258 Ill.App.3d 912 (1994) (prosecutorial misstatement improper)
People v. Bennett, 304 Ill.App.3d 69 (1999) (implication of officer credibility allowed only on record evidence)
Gallardo-Trapero v. United States, 185 F.3d 307 (5th Cir.1999) (prosecutor cannot argue officers would risk careers for lying when not in record)
Martinez v. United States, 981 F.2d 867 (6th Cir.1992) (improper to claim officers would risk careers absent evidence)
Pungitore v. United States, 910 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir.1990) (comments lacking record support improper)
Spain v. State, 872 A.2d 25 (2005) (prosecutor cannot invoke punitive consequences not in record)
Herron v. People, 215 Ill.2d 167 (2005) (plain-error framework for prosecutorial misconduct)
Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (2000) (comment on defendant’s opportunity to tailor testimony permissible)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (pretrial silence cannot be used to impeach after Miranda warnings)