United States v. Green, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212999 n.1 (W.D. N.C. Dec. 29, 2017):
In Defendant’s Objections, he argues his arrest was the result of racial prejudice and discrimination. [See Doc. 44]. With regard to assessing the truth and credibility of Detective Hendricks’ testimony, Defendant’s counsel goes so far as to state:
Counsel for [Defendant] urges the [C]ourt, supra, to find that the transaction described by [Detective] Hendricks did not occur but, if the [C]ourt finds that it did, it cannot do so without condoning this blatantly racist policing.
[Id. at 3, fn. 2]. The statement is not well-taken. The proposition, that the Court must either sustain Defendant’s objections or condone racism, is a false dilemma that adds no value to counsel’s advocacy or to the Court’s consideration of the issues. Defendant’s counsel is cautioned against making unnecessary statements that cast aspersions on the Court’s integrity.
Arguments like that can harm defense counsel’s credibiity for many years.