This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
Justice Stevens asked whether a prosecutor’s alleged misstatement of the law in a closing argument would be reviewable under AEDPA.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens also inquired about the relevance of the prosecutor’s argument.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Don Roper Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center)
The petitioner argues that the Court’s fairness standard for reviewing prosecutors’ closing arguments is a very general standard, and under AEDPA the State court should be given more leeway in reaching outcomes.
The petitioner contends that none of the prosecutor’s comments misstated the evidence or the law.
The petitioner maintains that it is not improper to make statements based on inferences from the evidence.
Respondent (William Weaver)
According to Respondent, the respondent asserts that the prosecutor’s penalty‑phase closing argument contained improper, mutually reinforcing statements that exploited the authority of his office, analogized the jury’s duties to soldiers, introduced extraneous matters, and appealed to jurors’ passions and prejudice.
The respondent argues that the death penalty in this case was sought solely for deterrent reasons, unanchored in the culpability of the defendant.
What happened at oral argument
The Court instructed that closing arguments are not evidence.
The case was submitted at the close of oral argument.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 36b7301138c7f973f0e0-r1-90c63a856e4b811d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.