Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Unless this incident can be traced to racial animosity, it has no relevance. Appellant was allegedly involved in an altercation with an Asian inmate, and there were no racial epitaphs spoken or other evidence of a racial motive as to the incident in issue here. Therefore, it was mere speculation to attribute a racial motive in this particular altercation to appellant. (See AOB at p. 194.) Because Evidence Code section 352 requires a balancing of the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect, respondent's failure to address the actual probative value of the evidence dooms his argument. Respondent's conclusion that the evidence was necessary to rebut appellant's defense evidence that he was not hostile to African-Americans is necessarily flawed because half of the equation - the probative nature - was never analyzed. Respondent argues that appellant was not prejudiced by this evidence because he had been charged with killing people in a drive-by shooting, an act more violent than the alleged assault. (RB at p. 129.) However, the fact that the alleged crime was more egregious than the improper character evidence does not negate the fact that a jury may be prejudiced by the evidence in question. The jury's job was to determine whether appellant committed the murders. Presumably, at the time the improper evidence was introduced, the jurors had not made up their minds about the charged offense. The assault evidence created an image of appellant as a violent racist. The inferences drawn by the jurors from such evidence influenced the jurors to conclude that it was more likely that appellant committed the murder than they would have been had the evidence not been introduced. Therefore, the fact that the murder was more serious than the character evidence did not negate the prejudicial impact ofthat evidence. In conclusion, the erroneous introduction of this evidence was prejudicial t appellant, thereby requiring a reversal of the judgment of conviction entered below. 98
XI THE PROSECUTOR'S MISCONDUCT IN ARGUMENT VIOLATED APPELLANT'S FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND COMPELS REVERSAL. The prosecutor committed several forms of misconduct In closing argument, including vouching for the veracity of a prosecution witness and presenting inconsistent factual arguments to the jury, thereby depriving appellant of his due process right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution ofthe United States. A. Appellant Is Not Barred From Presenting This Issue. Appellant contended in the opening brief that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct in argument when he vouched for prosecution witness Ernie Vasquez, thereby depriving appellant of the Due Process right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (AOB at pp. 201-205.) Vasquez was a key witness for the prosecution. He claimed to have obtained seriatim jailhouse admissions from both appellant and Nunez. He was present at the scene soon after the fatal shooting. He testified he saw Juan Caballeros at the wheel of a car with other occupants in the vicinity prior to the shooting. The prosecutor used Vasquez's identification of Caballeros as the car's driver and evidence appellant and Nunez were with Caballeros before and after the time ofthe shooting to argue that appellant and Nunez were the other occupants of the car. In making this argument, the prosecutor personally guaranteed that Vasquez's identification was true. Trial counsel objected to the prosecutor's guarantee, which brought about the following exchange with the court: The record shows the following: 99
Page 2 and 3:
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANT WILLIAM
Page 4 and 5:
2. The Pleadings Failed To NotifY A
Page 6 and 7:
VI THE JURy FAILED TO FIND THE DEGR
Page 8 and 9:
C. Standard OfReview And Prejudice
Page 10 and 11:
XIII APPELLANT JOINS IN ALL ISSUES
Page 12 and 13:
Mitchell v. Esparza (2003) 540 U.S.
Page 14 and 15:
People v. Cruz (2001) 93 Cal.App.4t
Page 16 and 17:
People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 2
Page 18 and 19:
CALlIC No. 8.31 passim CALJIC No. 8
Page 20 and 21:
ARGUMENTS GUILT PHASE ISSUES I THE
Page 22 and 23:
the facts indicate that only one de
Page 24 and 25:
form finding "personal use" to have
Page 26 and 27:
57 Cal.AppAth 871, 877; 9 Witkin, C
Page 28 and 29:
the weapon. Without again recountin
Page 30 and 31:
Respondent notes that between the m
Page 32 and 33:
In another apparent attempt to just
Page 34 and 35:
appellant has repeatedly said, the
Page 37 and 38:
not present them to the trial court
Page 39 and 40:
In People v. Knighten (1980) 105 Ca
Page 41 and 42:
Finally, it must be noted that the
Page 43 and 44:
B. The Constitutional Issues Are No
Page 45 and 46:
turn relied on the language from Wi
Page 47 and 48:
Indeed, in this case the instructio
Page 49 and 50:
as the prosecution's first-degree t
Page 51 and 52:
F. Conclusion In summary, by failin
Page 53 and 54:
As appellant explained in the openi
Page 55 and 56:
in the manner suggested by responde
Page 57 and 58:
Furthennore, it is well established
Page 59 and 60:
Appellant has explained above and i
Page 61 and 62: Cal.App.3d 970, 992.) Instead, resp
Page 63 and 64: 3. Appellant's Did Not Forfeit His
Page 65 and 66: In Argument V of the Opening Brief,
Page 67 and 68: IV IN FAILING TO REDACT PORTIONS OF
Page 69 and 70: People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Ca1.3d
Page 71 and 72: have been unreasonable for the jury
Page 73 and 74: shot Fuller and Robinson, and that
Page 75 and 76: find 'intent to kill'" on the basis
Page 77 and 78: THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION A
Page 79 and 80: Robinson's wounds indicated the sho
Page 81 and 82: caused great bodily injury or death
Page 83 and 84: use enhancement, the statutory lang
Page 85 and 86: 192-193), but fails to explain how
Page 87 and 88: Then we have the words "personal us
Page 89 and 90: trial and had therefore forfeited t
Page 91 and 92: merits of appellant's claim. (AOB a
Page 93 and 94: jury trial. (People v. Gottman (197
Page 95 and 96: Respondent argues that another theo
Page 97 and 98: needs to rely on the penalty verdic
Page 99 and 100: may not cross-examine a witness upo
Page 101 and 102: itself to appellant would be improp
Page 103 and 104: B. The Court Erred In Refusing The
Page 105 and 106: egarding the intent ofthe non-shoot
Page 107 and 108: B. Respondent's Arguments Are Mispl
Page 109 and 110: ut is only being allowed for use ag
Page 111: x THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTI
Page 115 and 116: "guarantee." Appellant is not proce
Page 117 and 118: v. Berryman (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1048,
Page 119 and 120: Contreras. Viewed in this context,
Page 122 and 123: overwhelmingly showed that only one
Page 124 and 125: XII GUILT AND PENALTY PHASE VERDICT
Page 126 and 127: Where Juror No. 2211 is concerned,
Page 128 and 129: The jury in Cruz was given a versio
Page 130 and 131: PENALTY PHASE ISSUES XIV THE TRIAL
Page 132 and 133: B. The Flaw In Respondent's Content
Page 134 and 135: participation ofall jurors. Contrar
Page 136 and 137: confuse[d]" (Harris) is no more tha
Page 138: It is submitted that these instruct
Page 141 and 142: inherent power to review an issue i
Page 143 and 144: prospective jurors who were found t
Page 145 and 146: (Id at p. 821.) This court has char
Page 147 and 148: church. (18RT 4448:4-6,4451:11-14.)
Page 149 and 150: (18RT 4450:12-14) or her mother (18
Page 151 and 152: had in fact reached an impasse at t
Page 153 and 154: There is an impasse. It is hung. Bu
Page 155 and 156: establishes, for example, that, whe
Page 157 and 158: and Code of Civil Procedure 233, wh
Page 159 and 160: a demonstrable reality. The court a
Page 161 and 162: CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT Rule 8.63
show all

Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?