 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rizo4/24/2002
ed no crime, to tell you what these men did to his friend."
"To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on remarks to the jury, the defendant must show a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the complained-of comments in an improper or erroneous manner. [Citations.] In conducting this inquiry, we `do not lightly infer' that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor's statements. [Citation.]" (People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th 894, 970.)
There is no reasonable likelihood the jury thought Santoyo was in protective custody. The jury knew Santoyo had been ordered by the court to appear prior to trial but had failed to do so and was arrested. When asked directly by defense counsel why he was in custody, Santoyo said he had been told it was because "there was a bench warrant for missing the court or something. They believed I was not going to come to the courthouse is what they told me." Santoyo admitted he was in custody because he had "violated the court order to come back to court on a particular date . . . ." The jury also knew Santoyo was handcuffed when the prosecutor took him to lunch. Thus it was clear he was in custody for failure to appear, not for his protection.
Defendants also contend the prosecutor asserted, without any basis in the record, that Santoyo could have avoided custody by recanting his statements to the police. The prosecutor argued Santoyo's "willingness to tell the truth, even after sitting in jail for 30 days, is a sign of his honesty." The prosecutor also said that, if Santoyo had lied initially, he would have recanted when taken into custody.
In context, the remarks were not improper. The point was that a witness who had been taken into custody likely would resent it and might refuse to testify favorably for the prosecution. As the prosecutor stated: "How would most of us react to that? It's hard to even predict; animosity, anger, `I'm going to say nothing, then. I'm going to lie. I am going to say it didn't happen.'" The inference was a legitimate one based on common experience.
2. Denigrating defense counsel
Defendants claim the prosecutor improperly denigrated defense counsel in several instances. "When a prosecutor denigrates defense counsel, it directs the jury's attention away from the evidence and is therefore improper. [Citation.] In addressing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct that is based on the denigration of opposing counsel, we view the prosecutor's comments in relation to the remarks of defense counsel, and inquire whether the former constitutes a fair response to the latter. [Citation.]" If the focus of the prosecutor's comments was on the evidence adduced at trial, rather than on the integrity of defense counsel, there is no misconduct. (People v. Frye, supra, 18 Cal.4th 894, 978.)
Defendants first complain that the prosecutor described their attempts to impeach Santoyo as "cheap shots" which "sort of shows the level and quality of the defense in this case." The remark was improper. However, even where there is misconduct, "we may not reverse the judgment if it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached in its absence. [Citation.]" (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1133.) Here, the court correctly sustained an objection and admonished the jury to disregard the prosecutor's remark. There is no reason to believe the admonition was not adequate to cure any prejudice.
The prosecutor also accused defense counsel of "shifting the buck and passing claims" to secure acquittals for their clients. The context of the remark was the prosecutor'
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|