(I’ll be anonymous for this one)

“[MR. VALESKA:] And we want an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth for you, McNair. For what? Here she is (indicating [towards victim's bloody clothes in chair at counsel table]). Here’s Mrs. Riley.

“MR. DECKER [defense counsel]: Objection.

“MR. VALESKA: Go ahead and object. Object all you want. This is Mrs. Riley (indicating).

“MR. DECKER: We object, your Honor.

“THE COURT: Gentlemen, let’s calm these arguments and the objections down. I think he can utilize the evidence in the case.

“MR. DECKER: Yes, your Honor. But to display them in such a fashion is to do nothing. And for the record, your Honor, he has got an empty chair and is placing clothing in the chair to indicate or form a semblance.

“THE COURT: Mr. Valeska, I would be careful in that part of your argument.

“MR. VALESKA: Judge, how can they sit here and argue about Christ and Jesus, and I can’t show the jury a display and sit down the clothes and say, this is what’s left of Mrs. Riley’s body. That’s not improper.

“THE COURT: I’m just-

“MR. VALESKA: Yes, sir. I’ll do it this way then. I’m not going to argue with the judge.

“MR. DECKER: For the record, could we have a-

“THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

“MR. DECKER: Thank you.

“MR. VALESKA: And I’m not afraid to hold it. I’m not afraid to touch it. This is Mrs. Riley (Indicating).

“MR. DECKER: We object, Your Honor, to the representation that that’s Mrs. Riley. That is not Mrs. Riley. That is blood-stained clothing. Improper argument.

“THE COURT: Overruled.”

the court of criminal appeals said it was improper, but – yada yada yada – upheld the conviction.

btw, the da – mr. valeska – is still going strong. if you want a fun exercise, do a westlaw search in alabama for “valeska” and then some combination of “misconduct” “batson” “improper argument” or “brady.”