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

were the occupants of the car driven by Caballeros in the general area of the
shooting. Joshua Contreras' statements to law enforcement were thus critical to
the prosecution's case, but they too were plagued by trustworthiness issues
because Contreras subsequently repudiated them. (See summary of Contreras
statements at AOB 10-12, 14.)
As a result, when the prosecutor "guaranteed the truth" of Vasquez'
identification and spoke of corroboration with factual references to Contreras'
statements to law enforcement, the prosecutor was effectively rehabilitating the
credibility of both Contreras and Vasquez. Information provided by both ofthese
men in statements to law enforcement and in their trial testimonies formed the
thrust ofthe prosecution's theory ofthe case. The credibility of each was suspect
for the reasons described above. (Ante, at pp. 12-13.)
For these reasons, the prosecutor's improper vouching infected the trial
with unfairness to a degree that denied appellant a fair trial warranting reversal of
the judgment of conviction. (Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, supra, 416 U.S. at p.
642.) Because the trustworthiness of information obtained from Vasquez and
Contreras was directly associated with the severe flaws attached to the credibility
of each, the prosecutor's vouching may not be said to have been harmless beyond
a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18,24.)
Appellant further submits that the prosecutor's improper vouching
constitutes misconduct under state law because the law is well settled that a
prosecutor may not invoke his personal prestige and reputation in vouching for a
witness. (People v. Huggins, supra, 38 Ca1.4th at pp. 206-207.) This experienced
trial prosecutor would have been aware that he was not permitted to vouch for the
credibility of his witnesses. The prosecutor would also have been aware that the
credibility of both Contreras and Vasquez was suspect and aware also that
information credited to both was essential to his case. In short, they were the
weak links in the prosecution's case, and so the prosecutor vouched directly for
Vasquez in a way that permitted him to also corroborate information provided by
104