Where a prosecutor improperly invites incriminating conduct reasoning during closing address but the underlying evidence is properly before the jury for non-incriminating purposes, the prejudice is capable of being cured by strongly worded judicial directions that precisely identify the impugned remarks, state they were wrong, explain the impermissible reasoning, and exhaustively set out the legitimate uses of the evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.