Law360 (October 2, 2026, 11:15 PM EDT) -- A divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court won't order a new rape trial for a man even though a prosecutor improperly implied the man's retaining an attorney was an indicator of guilt, finding the evidence in his case is so overwhelming that it outweighed the prosecutor's error. 

The court affirmed, 5-2, on Thursday the conviction of Ronald Jenkins Jr., finding that while a prosecutor incorrectly suggested he was guilty because he brought an attorney to a police interview and the comments likely "impacted" Jenkins' rights, they ultimately did not warrant a new trial.

"After review, we conclude that the prosecutor's mention of appellant's retention of an attorney to assist him while speaking with the police was improper and impacted his right to a fair trial," Justice Debra Todd said in the opinion. "However, we also determine that this error did not constitute a structural error requiring the automatic award of a new trial."

The majority ruled that while the remarks had a "slight" prejudicial effect, the weight of the evidence against Jenkins, particularly the DNA evidence, was overwhelming. The jury was likely not influenced by the statements, particularly because they were immediately addressed by the trial court, the majority said.

According to the opinion, on Valentine's Day 2017, Jenkins went to dinner with his childhood friend Damon Robinson and Robinson's girlfriend, now his wife, who is referred to in the opinion as the victim. The group went back to Robinson's apartment and began drinking vodka, and Jenkins and the victim smoked marijuana, the opinion said.

Robinson, feeling dizzy, went to the bedroom he shared with the victim, who then asked Jenkins to leave the apartment, the opinion said.

Jenkins refused, telling her that he wanted to be told to leave by Robinson personally, and that he was regularly allowed to spend the night. The victim said that after that interaction, he struck her and threw her against a wall with such a force that it damaged the wall, the opinion said.

Robinson later awoke still feeling dizzy, but noticed that Jenkins and his girlfriend were no longer in the apartment. Security footage later revealed that Jenkins had driven the victim to a nearby motel and had taken her "limp, motionless body" out of his car and to his room, the opinion said.

The victim said she awoke in Jenkins' motel room partially unclothed with little memory of the night before. Jenkins told her that she and Robinson had fought and that he had had to remove her from the apartment, the opinion said.

She immediately tried to leave the motel, walking shoeless down a busy interstate, but Jenkins followed in his car, and she eventually got in, the opinion said.

They drove to the apartment she shared with Robinson, and she and Robinson later contacted police.

A detective noted the victim had bruises on her body and was missing two acrylic nails, which were later recovered, the opinion said.

Two months after the attack, Jenkins had retained an attorney and during a telephone conversation with a police officer, denied having sex with the victim. Police later obtained vaginal swabs from the victim that tested positive for Jenkins' DNA, the opinion said.

Jenkins was charged with rape of an unconscious person and kidnapping to facilitate a felony along with other crimes. The prosecutor heavily implied during closing arguments that Jenkins' choice to retain an attorney during police questioning was proof that he was guilty, the opinion said.

Jenkins was found guilty and sentenced to 13 to 30 years in prison followed by five years of probation. He then appealed, claiming the statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments violated his due process rights and caused him to receive an unfair trial, the opinion said.

A divided Superior Court panel affirmed, concluding that the trial court's curative instruction remedied any prejudice from the improper remarks. The appeals court also noted that a judge told the jury to disregard the prosecutor's comments and also denied Jenkins a mistrial, the opinion said.

Two concurring opinions were filed alongside the majority, with Justice David Wecht flagging the majority's framing that the prosecutor's comment "impacted" Jenkins' rights without "violating" them. Justice Wecht said that because the trial was ultimately fair, Jenkins' rights were upheld.

Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, in her concurrence, said she was sympathetic with the dissenting view that the opinion could have a chilling effect on whether a defendant seeks counsel for a police interview. Ultimately, though, the courts have alternative ways of addressing prosecutorial misconduct, she said.

Justice Daniel McCaffery was joined by Justice Christine Donohue in finding that the remark likely did not "fully" contribute to Jenkins' guilty verdict but was still harmful to the public's willingness to consult an attorney. Justice McCaffery found that the remarks were not harmless and constituted a structural error.

"The result of the majority's decision will unavoidably discourage, to an unknown and variable degree, individuals from consulting with attorneys," Justice McCaffery said in the opinion. "This is contrary to many vital interests in our justice system, not just the interest in avoiding erroneous convictions."

An attorney representing Jenkins and a spokesperson for the Dauphin County District Attorney's Office did not respond to requests for comment.

The state is represented by Ryan Hunter Lysaght and Francis T. Chardo III of the Dauphin County District Attorney's Office.

Jenkins is represented by Spencer Hamilton Bradley and Mary Lynn Klatt of the Dauphin County Public Defender's Office.

The case is Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Ronald Jenkins Jr., case number 66 MAP 2024 in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

--Editing by Linda Voorhis.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.