WPCa N&0~"\NB[y%~"IQᅠ |"0;3AsdPfxmgx2c */;.^* $(pDP]䡹Dr#)lEB[#%S*p,$bpm+'Lq}GښK/$60I(cJnzی0t$ mZ~d=jPJ00~2-Uk밢I*4^ $95' ~! E#%x,NƗș#YZn;eZt_q@b( ^ c;5,4 }g)0%ѫ~9r u|4ȴE6W$ZWC:f^I Y R:Nvv] *w ǎTnd#W˦C~oC~}v,]I#UN] % 0F^ w4* m, 0UC 0 0u 04 0 0 0M 0 0 00 0 0 0g 0 0 0J 0 0n 0 0 0y 0# 0 0e! 0! 0" 0# 0<# 0#U>$ 0 C5%UA:x%Un>%L%<)N0 00 0N0/1 1UM5 1u5 726XI6U@: 0c:U>D;n;;U>AAU0{EcE>JLJU2LUNL 0 KMBN<UR`RRRRRRRRRRRRR <Y_-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ  Z ZCZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[HP LaserJet 1100 (MS),,,,0(I Z6Times New Roman Regular($  USUS.,0W7  6K7:i+003|x#U*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  <:Default Para8rr6Plain Text   2( 4 <DL2        2( 4 <DL2  \  `&Times New Roman( $    rAZ"Arial Regularz Z&Roman-WP Normal B C}$USUS.,    6  **F*  _+g *F+X +gԀForexample,thereviewingcourtwillaskwhethertheerror madebythe  prosecutorbeforethejury,[raises]thequestion...whetherthereisareasonable  likelihoodthatthejuryconstruedorappliedanyofthecomplainedofremarksin $ anobjectionablefashion."(Peoplev.Samayoa(1997)15Cal.4th795,841.)#*+X##*F*#**F(X* 6 #*(X##*F*#  C}$USUS.,    10  **F*  _**F(X*Ԁ"Impugningopposingcounselsintegrityisaveryseriousmatter;it  shouldbeundertakenonl#(g (X#(X (g#*(X#6X*yaftercarefulanalysis...."(U.S.v._Kojayan_(9thCir.  1993)8F.3d1315,1321.)Adefendanthasarighttotheeffectiveassistanceof $ coun#*6X#(X*#(g (Xz#(X (gsel,andwhereaprosecutorattacksthedefendantsattorneytheproblemisof 6 constitutionaldimension.(Brunov.Rushen(9thCir.1983)721F.2d1193,1195, H _cert.denied_,469U.S.920(1984).)InRushen,theprosecutor"...labeledcounsels  Z actionsasunethicalandperhapsevenillegalwithoutproducingoneshredof  l evidencetosupporthisaccusations."(Id.at1194.)TheNinthCircuitreversed . ~ thestateconvictionandcalledit"egregious"foraprosecutortoresortto"these @  reprehensiblemeanstoshortcuttheirresponsibilitytoferretoutalladmissible R  evidenceanduseonlythattomeettheirburdenofproof."(Id.at1195.)#*(X##*F*#0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  (O$ % C}$USUS.,    1  **F*  _Ԁg *FX gԀIfwedonotraiseanarguableissueofprosecutionmisconductonappeal,  wecouldbefoundineffective.(E.g.,#*X#6X*#6g 6X#6X 6gexamplesofinadequateappellate  representationbycounselwhichcausedreversalforanewappealare Peoplev. $ Lang(1974)11Cal.3d134;Peoplev.Rhoden(1972)6Cal.3d519;InreBanks 6 (1971)4Cal.3d337(failingtoraiseGriffinandCockrellerroronappeal);Inre H Smith(1970)3Cal.3d192;InreGreenfield(1970)11Cal.App.3d536.)  Z #*6X##*F*#$359=AEIMQ1111111113#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)3i) N C}$USUS.,    2  **F*  _6g *F6X 6gԀWewillgettotheconvictionstandardsofreview,i.e.,whethertheerrors  arefederalconstitutionalinmagnitudeornotunder#*6X#X*#g X#X gԀ#*X#+X*#+g +X#+X +gChapmanv.California(1967)  386U.S.18,or#*+X%##*F*g#**F6X*ԀPeoplev.Watson(1956)46Cal.2d818#6g 6X#6X 6g#*6X1#X*,836#*X##*F*#.(9 Z(Times New Roman (;3$2#  0  .3  0  \  `&Times New Romanhttp://www.cpda.org/claraweb/clarawebforums/index.php.  C}$USUS.,    4  **F*  _**F6X*ԀInfederalcourt,youdonothavetoresorttoIAC.Youargue plain  error.Prosecutorial#*6X#X*#g X#X gԀstatementstowhichthedefendantobjectsarereviewedfor  harmlesserror,whilecommentsforwhichnoobjectionismadearereviewedfor $ plainerror.(U.S.v.Brown#*X|#+X*(9thCir.2003)327F.3d867#*+X#X*,871.)Anerroris #*X4#6X*#6g 6X#6X 6gplain 6 ifitis:(1)error,(2)clearorobvious,(3)affectingsubstantialrights,and(4) H seriouslyaffectingthefairness,integrity,orpublicreputationofthejudicial  Z proceedings.U.S.v._Blueford_,312F.3d962,974(9thCir.2002).#*6X##*F*#(I Z&Times New Roman  C}$USUS.,    7  **F*  _Ԁg *FX gThecourtsmaydeemanerroroffederalconstitutionaldimensionand  thensayitwasprejudicialundereitherChapmanorWatson. Thistacticdenied  appellanthisSixthAmendmentrightstoconfrontandcross-examineanuncalled $ prosecutionwitness.Therefore,reversalisrequiredunlesswearesatisfiedbeyond 6 areasonabledoubtthatthemisconductdidnotaffectthejury'sverdict.[Cites.] H (Peoplev.Hall(2000)82Cal.App.4th813,817.)That'sfine.We'lltakea  Z reversalanywaywecan.#*X##*F*#*t ZRoman-WP Y C}$USUS.,    5  **F*  _Ԁ=g *F=X =g [_W]here_Ԁimpropercommentsandassertionsareinterspersedthroughout  trialand/orclosingargument,repeatedobjectionsmightwellservetoimpress  uponthejurythedamagingforceofthemisconduct.(Peoplev._Kirkes_(1952)39 $ Cal.2d719,726[249P.2d1].)Insuchasituation,aseriesofadmonitionswillnot 6 generallycuretheharmfuleffectofsuchmisconduct.(Ibid.)(Peoplev.Pitts H (1990)#=g =X#=X =g#*=X#=X*Ԁ223Cal.App.3d606,692.)#*=X#=X*Ԁ#*=X##*F*R#http://www.charlessevilla.comk u C}$USUS.,    8  **F*  _Ԁ**F6X*ԀInarelatedarea,seePeoplev.Jackson(1985)167Cal.App.3d829(the  prosecutorbegan"dating"defensecounselon"aregularbasis"throughoutthe  durationofthecriminalproceedingsagainstthedefendant,unbeknownsttothe $ latter;convictionreversed.)#*6X##*F*#* ZRoman-WP (   Z 6Times New Roman Regular(:f2}$ !  USUS.,      0  ** * 8 C}$USUS.,    3  **F*  _Ԁ**F6X*Andwhentherarecaseisfiledfordiscipline,thetreatmentislessharsh  thanthedefensemightexpect.(See,e.g.,Pricev.StateBar,30Cal.3d537,  550-551[prosecutordeliberatelyalteredwrittendocumentaryevidenceina $ murdertrialtoassisthiswitness'stestimonyanddeprivethedefendantof 6 impeachment;hedestroyedtheoriginalandsubmittedtodefensecounselthe H forgedcopy.Afterconviction,hepursuedaplantohidehismisconductby  Z secretlymeetingwiththedefendantinjailtoobtainthelatter'sconsenttowaive  l  hisrighttoappealinreturnforalightersentence.Result:twoyearsuspension].)#*6X##*F*#http://www.charlessevilla.com  MNT nunc tuncfraternalismCockrellBranerHavlena CPDACrittendenHodgeGrosshansDahmerCrottsBuchtelindelibilityBrophyAntonelliDonnellyBlackingtonKronemyerCucciaCoddingtonDretkeJerniganKylesBrumelPruntyCarrigerBerardiB]ecauseB.C.R.Corenevsky TranHwameiKetchelCarthagodelendaPurvisSchiersHolohanLapagePigageChatman EarpOrnoskiKojayanPrantilassertion[sWeatherspoonPadillaConover WeinParleImblerPachtmancolorableGarewalPreciadoSantobelloFuenteF.SuppCoppedgeMendocinoSilverthorneDennoStiltnerEubanksGangerPeytonKaanehePurkettSerraYoungbloodSyndoW]hileSandovalWatson.PeopleKasimCrofootCal.AppPolasekfrustrates[sMullinNajeraCriscioneAgursRidolfiMakhlouta I]tfrustrate[sHeishmanCargleTDelaney v. United States 1 U_ Delaneyv.UnitedStates ,199F.2d107,113115(1stCir.1952) dhillhill1 9_Peoplev.Hill (1998)17Cal.4th800  C}$USUS.,    9  **F*  _Ԁ**F6X*InJohnsonv.SuperiorCourt(1975)15Cal.3d248,thecourtfoundan  obligationontheprosecutortodiscloseanyknownexculpatoryevidencetothe   grandjury.CasessubsequenttoJohnsonhaveindicatedstatedueprocessrights  maybeimplicatedifthegrandjuryproceedingsareconductedinawaythat  "compromisesthegrandjury'sabilitytoactindependentlyandimpartially." $ (Peoplev.Thorbourn(2004)121Cal.App.4th1083,1089[involvingfavorable 6 evidencediscoveredaftertheindictment,citingPeoplev.SuperiorCourt H (Mouchaourab)(2000)78Cal.App.4th403,435[defendantmayreview  Z communicationsbetweentheprosecutorandgrandjurytoprepare995motion],  l relyingonCummiskeyv.SuperiorCourt(1992)3Cal.4th1018[presentationof . ~ irrelevantandincompetentevidencemightviolatedueprocess,butwasfound @  harmlessinthatcase];Peoplev.Backus(1979)23Cal.3d360[improper R  instructionsgiventograndjury].)  #*6X##*F*# !  USUS.,  _ 8XXdd8  DevelopingClaimsofProsecutionErroronAppealorHabeas  d      `     h By       `    CharlesM.Sevilla   Z     `    LawOfficeofCharlesSevilla n Ѐ   `    1010SecondAve.,Suite1825 2    `    SanDiego,CA92101 F    `     h (619)2322222 Z    `    4E l0O  5  www.charlessevilla.com60O  7  n    `     h October22,2007 &^!   .)' 8XXdXXd8@pp"TableofContents   I.IntroductoryThoughts............................................................................................1 (     A.Reality.........................................................................................................1 L II.AnApproachtoDevelopingandArguingtheIssueonAppeal..........................3  p   A.ProsecutionErrorisSerious......................................................................4 D  (X  B.WhattoCallIt?ProsecutionErrororMisconduct?..................................5 h  #X(X#  C.IntentionalityoftheErrorisNotNecessarytobeShown.........................5   +XX  D.AnalogiestoConfrontationDenialCases#X+X#.................................................5    E.DeNovoReviewIfaConstitutionalError""J(#.;6 $ (XX(X(XIII.DealingwithaPoorlyMadeRecordonAppeal#X(X ##XX #.................................................6 H (XX(X(X  A.DealingwithWaiverProblems#X(X ##XX #..................................................................6 l (XX(X(XIV.ArguingPrejudiceThematicallyasChapmanErrorBeforeWatson#X(X ##XX" #................9 @ (XX(X(X  A.AEDPA(AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyAct)....................10 d #X(X ##XX #(XX(X(X  B.E.g.,ADueProcessViolationandPerhapsaConfrontationDenial#X(X ##XX#......10   (XX(X(X0  C.#X(X##XX #ConcentrateYourForces:ArgueCumulativeErrorWas " Prejudicial#<"<"I(#.  (#(##10 #   D.ArguingovertheCurativeInstruction<"<"I(#.711 %2! 6XX6X6X  E.CloseCaseFactors...................................................................................#X6X##XX#12 (V#!   F.IntentionalityNeedNotBeShownExceptinPureStateLawClaims....12 **z%#   G.+XX+X+XDealingwithWatson................................................................................13  N,'% #X+X ##XX+#  H.Finally,ArgueThattheReasonableJurorWouldHaveUsedtheIllicit  ЀArgumentasaBasisofFindingGuilt<"<"I(#.((:14  V.IssuesThatMayNeedInvestigation...................................................................14 6   A.Brady+XX+X+Xv.Maryland....................................................................................14  Z #X+Xz##XX#(XX(X(X  B.OtherAreastoInvestigateProsecutionError#X(Xx##XX#..........................................17 . ~   C.GettingResourcestoInvestigateOutsidetheRecordConduct..............24 R     `    VI.SampleArguments............................................................................................24 v  6XX6X6X  A.TheBaseballAnalogy#X6X##XX#..............................................................................24   6XX6X6X  B.NotReasonedandObjective#X6X##XX#.................................................................24  6XX6X6X  C.A#6X6X#6X6XrguingforDismissal..............................................................................25 2 #X6X##XX-#6XX6X6XVII.Sp#6X6X+##X6X #ecificExamplesofProsecutionError.........................................................25 V Conclusion...............................................................................................................35  *z   DevelopingClaimsofProsecutionErroronAppealorHabeas      `     h By     `    CharlesM.Sevilla & +XX8  Itistoomuchthehabitofprosecutingofficerstoassumebeforehand J thatadefendantisguilty,andthenexpecttohavetheestablished  \ rulesofevidencetwisted,andallthefeaturesofafairtrialdistorted,  n inordertosecureaconviction.Ifadefendantcannotbefairly 0  convicted,heshouldnotbeconvictedatall;andtoholdotherwise B  wouldbetoprovidewaysandmeansfortheconvictionofthe T  innocent.(Peoplev.Wells  (1893)100Cal.459,465.)#X+X#f       I.IntroductoryThoughts. 󀀀     Giventhesophisticationoftheaudience,I'mnotgoingtogivea   conventionallectureon"hereareexamplesofprosecutionerror."Youallknowit  whenyouseeit(atleastinthearguablesense)andknowhowtoraiseissueswhen . properlyframedbyobjectionsintherecord. @   WhatIwouldliketodiscussarewaysofdevelopingandarguingthese d issues.Manyoftheerrorsinthisareaareeithernotpreservedbyobjectionor &v hiddenfromtheappellaterecord(e.g.,Bradyclaims).Themostobviouswayto 8 bringoutsuchissuesistobeinvolvedinthecasefromthestartandhelpsetupthe J trialrecord. \   Perhapsyouarecontactedjustaftertrialandbeforesentencingandare  giventhetimetoreadtherecordinordertofashiona MNT,amotionfornewtrial.   Whilesuchreviewandmotionworkwillnotinsertintotherecordobjectionsnunc ! protunc,itwillallowforanIAC(ineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim)inthe " motionandallowitasanappealissue.(SeePeoplev.Fosselman(1983)33 # Cal.3d572,encouragingIACclaimsattheMNTstage.) $*    Farmorelikely,you'llenterthecasepostconvictioneitheronappealor &N"  postappeal. (`#!   A.Reality.  Therealityisthatmanyprosecutionerrorclaimsarelost 4*%# becausetrialcounseldidnotadequatelypreservetherecord.Ifthedutyofrecord L+&$ preservationwererepeatedlypoundedintotheheadsofyoungtrialcounsel,many ^,'% significantissueswouldnotbelosttotherecordonappeal.Onewayto  accomplishrecordawarenessistorequireyoungtrialcounseltohandletheirown  appealsasIwasrequiredtodoasayoungFederalDefender.Nothing $ concentratesthetrialmindonrecordpreservationsomuchasthefearofhavingto 6 doanappealinwhichyoufailedtopreservetheissues. H   Barringthat,orinadditiontoit,isourinvolvementwiththetrialbar.We  l candomuchtofurthertheperfectionofrecordmakingby: . ~   1.Volunteeringtotrainyoungpublicdefendersandpanelattorneysonthe R  issue.Remindingtrialcounselthatiftheydonotraisetheissue,wewillifwe d  can.EvenifitcomesunderthebannerofIACandeveniftheydonotlikeit,we v  willpursueit. +XX Anattorneyshouldrepresenthisclienttothehilt,evenatthecost   ofprofessionalfraternalism. (Peoplev.Crawford(1968)259Cal.App.2d874,   880.)1 )   1      #X+X>,#Ԁ    2.Morepositively,wecanmeetthetrialcounselprotestthatattentionto & recordmakingiscounterproductivetotrialstrategyandgoals.Thisisalmost 8 alwaysbaloney.Ihavepostedonmywebsitearticlesaddressingthepoint.See J publicationspageat4? 0O  5  www.charlessevilla.com6/0O+/  7 ~Y/Ԁfordownloadablepapersincluding  \ theMantraMotionforfederalizingissues,andalengthypaperdeliveredlast n February2007attheMontereyDeathPenaltySeminaron MakingaWinning 0 Record.Thisdiscussescommonevidentiaryissuesfacedattrialandgivestrial B counselareadymadelistofsuggestedstepstoarguethepointandmakethe T record. f   Thereisnoquestionaprepared,recordattentivetrialcounselisafarmore   formidableopponentandbettertriallawyerthanthosewhoeschewrecord ! making. "  #   3.Onappeal,talkingtothetrialcounselearlyintheappealprocessabout  theissuesisimportant,notonlytogainanunderstandingofthecaseandlikely  issues,butbecausegoodtrialcounselmayinviteyoutoexaminehis/her $ performanceinnotpreservingaparticularissue.Sendcopiesoftheappellate 6 brieftotrialcounsel.IfIACisraisedforfailuretopreservetherecord,thebrief H willexplainwhyandmayprovidealearningexperience.  Z   4.Sincethemostpreferablecourseistheoneinwhichtrialcounselis . ~ attentivetotherecord,wewanttoencourageandfacilitatethatsensitivity.Onthe @  issueofprosecutionerror,therearenumerousexcellentpublicationsavailableon R  lineattheCaliforniaPublicDefenderAssociation'sMagazine.Seethearticlesby d  HankHall,MattBraner,TomHavlena,andothers,downloadableatCPDA's v  website:49 40O  5  www.cpda.org/claraweb/clarawebforums/index.php.670O+7  7 pY7ԀTrialattorneys   shouldreadoneofthesearticlesbeforeeachtrialtogetintotherecordmaking   moodandberesensitizedtothemanywaysinwhichprosecutionerrorrearsits  uglyheadattrial.    Butdespitetheaboveapproaches,weinevitablyreceiveappealcaseswith 2 issuesofprosecutionerror,imperfectlypreservedornot,anddealwiththem.The D restofthispaperdiscussesstrategiesfordealingwiththeissue. V    II.AnApproachtoDevelopingandArguingtheIssueonAppeal. *z    Prosecutionmisconductisfrequentlyraisedonappealandpronetoreceive R the ohhumtreatmentespeciallywhenarguedasapersonalattackonthe d integrityoftheprosecutor.Ihaveseveralthoughtsforchangingthebasisof v discussiontobemorepersuasiveinarguingthisissue:1.arguethisas error   andnotmisconduct;2.informthecourttheproperstandardofreviewisone ! acknowledgingthateveninadvertentprosecutionerrormaydenydueprocess;3. " wheretheerrorisakintoimpartingnonrecordinformationtothejury,arguethe # analogouscaselawfromhearsay/confrontationandjurymisconductcases;and4. $  remindthecourtthattheseerrorsareimportanttothedefendantandthelegal %2! process. &D"    Eachoneoftheseapproachesremovespersonalaccusationfromtheissue )h$" andarguesamoreobjectiveassessmentoferroranddamagefromtheerror. **z%#   <+&$   A.ProsecutionErrorisSerious. 5 )   2      ׀+XX+X+XInallmannerofways,theintegrityof   thetrialprocessisdirectlyrelatedtotheintensityofitsreviewonappeal.  Overlookingordiminishingtheimportanceofprosecutionerrorcountenances * underminingthefairtrialguarantee#X+X?#(XX.#X(XYA##XX?#ԀThisissueisquiteserious.TheCalifornia < CommissionontheFairAdministrationofJustice'sOctober18,2007reporton N  RecommendationsonProfessionalResponsibilityandAccountabilityof  ` ProsecutorsandDefenseLawyers,citesastudyof2,130casesbyCookieRidolfi. " r Shefoundthatthecourtsfoundprosecutionmisconductin443(21%)ofthecases 4  andin53ofthem(12%)thejudgmentwasreversed.SeetheReportonthe F  Commission'swebsite:www.ccfaj.org. X    WeknowtheStateisrequiredtogiveafairtrialandwhentheprosecutor |  errsitunderminestheprocessandsabotagestherighttoafairtrial.Italsocan   leadtotheconvictionoftheinnocent.SeeBarryScheck,PeterNeufeldandJim   Dwyer,ActualInnocence(NewYork:SignetPenguinBooksLtd.,2001),  discussingprosecutionmisconductasoneofthetopcausesofconvictingthe  innocent: prosecutorialmisconductplayedapartin45%ofthe74DNA & exonerationsdescribedinthebook.(Id.at318.) 8   Becauseofthepowerandinfluenceonthejury: [a]+XX+X+XԀprosecutorisheldtoa  \ standardhigherthanthatimposedonotherattorneysbecauseoftheunique n functionheorsheperformsinrepresentingtheinterests,andinexercisingthe 0 sovereignpower,oftheState.(Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800,#+X+X8G#+X+X#X+XG#+XX820.)Yet, B astheFairnessCommissionstudyobserves,veryfewcasesinvolvingcourt T findingsofmisconductprovokesanctions.Thisincludesfailuretoreferthe f miscreanttotheStateBarasisrequiredunderBus.&Prof.Code6086.7.D )   3      ׀ x Ї#X+XH#(XX#(X(XH#  B.WhattoCallIt?ProsecutionErrororMisconduct ?Ihavethusfar  called prosecutionerrorwhatis#X(XJ#(XXԀmoreoftenlabeled prosecutionmisconduct.I  dothisforareason.Havingappellatecourtsagreeontheissueoferroris,of * course,theessentialfirststeptoarguingprejudice.Doesourlanguageusagehave < animpactonpersuasioninthisregard?Ithinkso.#X(XK#(XXԀIntheimportantcaseof N #X(XiM#+XXPeoplev.Hill (1998)17Cal.4th800,823  ,fn.1,  theSupremeCourtstatedthe  ` claimofprosecutorialmisconductismoreproperlycalledprosecutorial error. ( x Thisisbecauseafederaldueprocessclaimofprosecutionerrordoesnotturnon :  theexistenceofmaliciousnessormalevolentintent;rather,itfocusesonthe L  adverseaffectonthedefendantsfairtrialrights. (Neitherdostatelawclaims,as ^  willbediscussedundertheprejudicesectionbelow.) p  #X+XM#  Theremaybeanadvantagetoloweringtherhetoricindiscussingthisclaim.   Findingsof misconductarehardenoughtoattain.Labelingthem constitutional   errormaymakethempsychologicallymoreacceptabletofind.Evenincasesof  trulyoutrageousbehavior,ratherthanlacingtheargumentwithnumerous  pejorativeadjectives,detaileddescriptionsoftheconductaremorelikelyto , persuade.Letthecourtcometotheconclusionoferrorandprejudicebasedon > whatyoushowfromtherecord. P   C.IntentionalityoftheErrorisNotNecessarytobeShown .Thisis $t discussedmorefullyintheprejudicesection,butitbaresmentionthatno < intentionalityneedbeshowntofindconstitutionalprosecutionerror.(XXԀIn#X(XKT#+XXPeoplev. N Hill (1998)17Cal.4th800,819thecourtstatedthatafederaldueprocessclaimof ` prosecutionerrordoesnotturnontheexistenceofintentionality,butratherthe x adverseaffectonfairtrialrights.Butseebelowrepurestatelawclaims.    D.AnalogiestoConfrontationDenialCases. Manytimesthe ! prosecutor'serrormaybeviewedasanefforttoimportnonevidenceintothecase. " Inadditiontocitingthecasesalreadyfindingthistobeprosecutionerror,an #( argumentshouldbemadetootherareasofthelawwhereimportingnonevidence $:  hasbeendeemedafederalconstitutionalerror.Thus,forexample,intheareaof %L! jurymisconduct,whenajurorimpartsnonevidencetothedeliberatingjury, '^"  constitutionalconsiderationsareraised:#X+XT# Ajuror'scommunicationofextrinsic  (p#! factsimplicatestheConfrontationClause.SeeJeffriesv.Wood,114F.3d1484, 2)$" 1490(9thCir.1997)(enbanc).Thejurorineffectbecomesanunswornwitness,  notsubjecttoconfrontationorcrossexamination.Seeid.(Sassounianv.Roe  (9thCir.2000)230F.3d1097,1108.)Or,perhapstheprosecutorspokeofwhata $ nonwitnesswouldhavesaid.Thisisakintotheproductionoftestimonialhearsay 6 andaviolationoftheconfrontationclauseunderXXCrawfordv.Washington(2004) H 541U.S.36.#XXD[#ԀBydemonstratingtheerrorissimilartothoseinvolvingfederal  Z constitutionalviolations,theopportunitytoelevatethenatureoftheclaimand  l obtainanoptimalChapmanstandardofreviewisenhanced. . ~   E.DeNovoReviewIfaConstitutionalError. 6XX6X6XMi#X6X]#6XX#6X6X9]#6X6Xsconductinargument R  affectingadefendantsconstitutionalrightsissubjecttodenovoreview.U.S.v. j  Mares,940F.2d455,461(9thCir.1991).Otherwise,reviewisforabuseof |  discretion.U.S.v.Makhlouta,790F.2d1400,1403(9thCir.1986).#X6X}]##XX]#   XX(XX   III.DealingwithaPoorlyMadeRecordonAppeal     A.DealingwithWaiverProblems .#X(X_#+XX"Asageneralruleadefendantmay ( notcomplainonappealofprosecutorialmisconductunlessinatimelyfashion @ andonthesamegroundthedefendant[requested]anassignmentofmisconduct R and[also]requestedthatthejurybeadmonishedtodisregardtheimpropriety. d [Citation.]"(Peoplev.Samayoa (1997)15Cal.4th795,841.)#+X+X_##X+Xw`#Ԁ(XX(X(XThisisthefrequent &v obstacletoraisingtheissue.Trialcounseldidnotobject,orobjectedimperfectly. > Thereareavarietyofwaystocopewithsuchimperfectionstohavetheissue P reviewedonthemerits. b   1.Arguetheobjectionmadewasgoodenough.(#X(Xb#6XXPeoplev.Scott(1978)21  Cal.3d284,290("Anobjectionissufficientifitfairlyapprisesthetrialcourtof   theissueitisbeingcalledupontodecide.")#X6XSd#(XX#(X(Xb#(X(X !   2.Thecourtshouldreviewitevenwithouttheobjection.(E.g.,#X(X_e#+XXPeoplev. # Malone(1988)47Cal.3d1,38(SupremeCourt assumednoproceduraldefault $0  andreviewedthemeritsoftheevidentiaryissuedespitelackofanydefense %B! objectiontoprosecutioncrossexaminationofthedefendantaboutwhetherhehad 'T"  statedtoothershehadkilledsomeoneearlierthatday.)#X+XVf#(XX#(X(Xe#(X(X (f#!   ()x$"   3.Ifnotpreserved,argueIAC.: )   4      ׀RaisingIACforfailuretopreservethe   recordmaygetmeritsreviewevenwithoutthecourtaddressingIAC.(E.g.,  #X(X&h#6XXPeoplev.Crittenden(1994)#X6Xj#6XX#6X6Xhh#6X6XԀ9Cal.4th83,146,thecourtheldthatdefe#X6Xtj#6XXnsecounsel $ waivedissuesofprosecutionmisconductforfailureoftrialcounseltoobject,but 6 thenreviewedtheissueanyway: Nonetheless,inviewofthepotentialclaimthat H counsel'sfailuretoobjectonthespecificgroundsurgedonappealdeniedhimhis  Z rightsunderthestateandfederalConstitutionstotheeffectiveassistanceof  l counsel,wereviewtheseclaimsonthemerits.)Italicsadded. . ~   TherearesomenicefederalcasestociteholdingtrialdefensecounselIAC R  fornotprotectingtheclientfromprosecutionmisconduct.(#X6X$k##XXj#Hodgev.Hurley(6th d  Cir.2005)426F.3d368,372( failingtoobjecttotheprosecutors egregiously v  improperclosingargument,theprosecutorcommentedonthecredibilityof   witnesses,misrepresentedthefactsofthecase,madederogatoryremarksaboutthe   defendant,andgenerallytriedtoconvincethejurytoconvictonthebasisofbad  character);Martinv.Grosshans(7thCir.2005)424F.3d.588,591592(failureto  objecttothreeprosecutiontacticswasIACincludingthestatementthat even   JeffreyDahmercouldproducecharacterwitnesses);Burnsv.Gammon(8thCir. 2 2001)260F.3d892,896(pre-AEDPAattemptedrapecase;counselIACfor D failingtoobjecttotheprosecutorsimpropercommentintherebuttalclosing V argumentaskingthejurytoconsiderthatthedefendant,bygoingtotrial,forced h thevictimtotakethestandandrelivetheattack);Crottsv.Smith(9thCir.1996) *z 73F.3d861,866(IACforfailuretoobjecttoprosecution'scross-examinationof < defendantconcerningaboastfulstatementmadetoanotherthathehadpreviously N "killedacop"wherewasnoevidencethatstatementwastrue.)6XX6X6X ` #X6Xs#(XX#(X(Xt#(X(X  4.Invariousways,argueanobjectionwouldhavebeenfutile.This   argumentmayprevailwhenthetrialattorneyhastriedtocurbthemisconductonly ! tobeshotdownseveraltimesbythecourt.(E.g.,Peoplev.Hill,supraat#X(Xpt#+XX#+X+Xt#17 " Cal.4th821#X+X'v#XX(XX.)Repeatedunsuccessfuldefenseobjectionsobviouslyharmthe #  defensebeforethejuryandcanbearguedintandemwithfutility.(Id.;seealso  Peoplev.Buchtel(1963)221Cal.App.2d397,403:  8  Triallawyersarewellawarethatfrequentlyadmonitionstoajuryto 6 disregardthatwhichhasalreadybeenimplantedintheirmindsserve H onlytoemphasizeandunderlineandsometimestransformthe  Z inconsequentialintoindelibility.Soarethecourtsawareofthis;and  l reversalwillfollowwherethecaseisevenlybalancedortheerroris . ~ ofsuchacharacterthataharmfulresultcannotbecured.(Peoplev. @  Lyons(1958)]50Cal.2d245,262.)#X(Xv##XXv#  R      Inotherwords,ifthereisapatternofmisconductandsomeobjections,that v  mayexcusethefailuretoobjecttoallinstancesofmisconduct.Peoplev.Estrada   (1998)63Cal.App.4th1090,1100,statesthatwhen: themisconductispartofa   pattern,whenthemisconductissubtleandwhenmultipleobjectionsandrequests  formistrialaremade,weconcludeitproperforareviewingcourttoconsiderthe  citedmisconductinevaluatingthepatternofimpropriety.> )   5      ׀6XX   #X6X`}#=XX=X=X  Therulethatadefendantmustobjectandrequestanadmonitionattrialin D ordertopreservetheissueforappeal"appliesonlyifatimelyobjectionorrequest V foradmonitionwouldhavecuredtheharm."Accordingly,theruleisnot h applicablewhereanyobjectionbydefensecounselwouldalmostcertainlyhave *z beenoverruled.(Peoplev.Hamilton(1989)48Cal.3d1142,1184,fn.27.)#X=X}##XX}#6XX < #X6X"#XX(XX  5.SolventGreen.Peoplev.Green(1981)27Cal.3d1,34,standsforthe ` propositionthatanimproperprosecutorialargumentwhichisnottimelyobjected r tomaynotberaisedonappealunlessthemisconductisofsuchanaturethatno   curativeactionwouldhavecuredtheerror. ! #X(X#(XX#(X(Xy#(X(XԀ " #X(X]##XX#XX(XX  InӀPeoplev.Johnson(1981)121Cal.App.3d94,theprosecutortoldthejury #  hehadpersonallyinvestigatedthecaseandfoundthetestimonyofadefense $  witnessonacertainpointtobeanoutrightlie.Therewasnoobjectiontothis  argument.Theappellatecourtconcludedanobjectionandadmonitionwouldnot  curetheharm.Findingtheerroroffederalconstitutionalmagnitudebecausethe $ commentimplicitlywasastatementoftheprosecutor'sownpersonalknowledge, 6 thecourtreversed. H   6.CautionaryInstructionNotGoodEnough.Sometimestheconductisso  l egregiousthatevenwhenthetrialcourtinterjectsanadmonitiontellingthejuryto . ~ ignoretheprosecutor'scomment,thiswillnotbeenoughtosaveaconviction.In @  Peoplev.Brophy(1954)122Cal.App.2d638,defensecounselarguedthe R  prosecutionhadnotproducedabulletwhichshouldhavebeenatthescene.This d  wastruenobullethadbeenintroduced.However,duringfinalargument,the v  prosecutorproducedabullet.Thedefenseobjectedandthetrialcourttoldthejury   toignorethebullet.Inreversingtheconviction,theappellatecourtnotedthe   prosecutor'scommentswere"sohighlyprejudicialthatnoadmonitionofthetrial  judgetodisregarditcoulderasefromthemindsofthejurorstheundoubted  electriceffect"ofthebullet'sproduction.     7.WaiverExcusedDuetoMisconductbytheProsecutor.(E.g.,Peoplev. D Hernandez(2003)30Cal.4th835,871#(X(X##X(X9#6XX6X6X [#X6X4##XXS#(XX(X(X"Defendantdidnotobjecttothe V evidence...ortotheprosecutor'sargument.Buthisfailuretodosowasexcusable, h inlightoftheprosecutor'sinaccuraterepresentationtothetrialcourtthat *z defendanthadbeenconvictedoftheassault].)#(X(Xߋ##X(X#(XX(X(X < #X(X}##XX#x(XX(X(X ӀIV. 󀀀 ArguingPrejudiceThematicallyasChapmanErrorBeforeWatson . `   Anotherdoseofreality.Reversalsforprosecutionmisconductaredifficult   toattainbecauseeveniftheconductisdeemedreprehensible,it'sheldnot ! reversibleforlackofprejudice.JudgeJeromeFrank,inadissent,discussedthis " phenomena: # 8  Thiscourthasseveraltimesusedvigorouslanguageindenouncing %4! governmentcounselforsuchconductasthatoftheUnitedStates &F"  Attorneyhere.But,eachtime,ithassaidthat,nevertheless,itwould (X#! notreverse.Suchanattitudeofhelplesspietyis,Ithink,undesirable. )j$" Itmeansactualcondonationofcounsel'sallegedoffense,coupled ,*|%# withverbaldisapprobation.Ifwecontinuetodonothingpracticalto >+&$ preventsuchconduct,weshouldceasetodisapproveit.Forotherwise P,'% itwillbeasifwedeclaredineffect,'Governmentattorneys,without  fearofreversal,maysayjustaboutwhattheypleaseinaddressing  juries,forourrulesonthesubjectarepretend-rules.Ifprosecutors $ winverdictsasaresultof'disapproved'remarks,wewillnotdeprive 6 themoftheirvictories;wewillmerelygothroughtheformof H expressingdispleasure.Thedeprecatorywordsweuseinouropinions  Z onsuchoccasionsarepurelyceremonial.'Governmentcounsel,  l employingsuchtactics,arethekindwho,eagertowinvictories,will . ~ gladlypaythesmallpriceofaritualisticverbalspanking.The @  practiceofthiscourt-recallingthebittertearshedbytheWalrusashe R  atetheoysters-breedsadeplorablycynicalattitudetowardsthe d  judiciary.[internalcitesomitted].v    U.S.v.AntonelliFireworksCo.(2dCir.1946)#(X(XL#(X(X#X(X-#(XXԀ155F.2d631,661(Frank,   dissenting.)    A.AEDPA(AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyAct) :Always   raisetheissueasoneofdueprocessand/orconfrontation,orotherapplicable 8 federalconstitutionalrights#X(Xt#(XX#(X(X2#(X(X. #X(X#+XXWhenspecificguaranteesoftheBillofRightsare J involved,thisCourthastakenspecialcaretoassurethatprosecutorialconductin  \ nowayimpermissiblyinfringesthem.(Donnellyv.DeChristoforo(1974)#X+X#+XX#+X+X3#+X+XԀ416 n U.S.637,643.)Afederalclaimobviouslygetsthebetterstandardofreviewfor 0 harm.Federalizeseparatelyboththeprosecutionmisconductandthecumulative B errorissue(seeinfra.) T #X+XŚ##XX#(XX(X(X  B.E.g.,ADueProcessViolationandPerhapsaConfrontationDenial. #X(X##XX# x (Peoplev.Blackington(1985)167Cal.App.3d1216,1219[prosecutor   committedmisconductbyreadingfromapriorout-of-courtstatementmadebythe ! codefendantwhilecross-examiningdefendant;heldprejudicialunderChapman].)XX(XX "   C.#X(X##XX#ConcentrateYourForces:ArgueCumulativeErrorWasa $(  PrejudicialDueProcessViolation. 6XX6X6XԀ#X6X#6XXInPeoplev.Hill,supra,17Cal.4that845, %  witnesswasnowblamingonthedefendant],butalsothathehadalong P  historyoflyingtothepoliceandblamingotherstocoveruphisownguilt.#X6X#(XX(XX(X)b (#(#   #(XX(X#(X(X4.ThereisNoGoodFaithDefensetoBradyError.#(X(X #(XX(XԀ#(XX(X#(X(XԀWhetherthewithheld ` evidencewasintentional,negligentorinnocentmakesnodifference.#X(X{#(Kylesv. r Whitley#XX#Ԁ(1995)514U.S.419,437-38(XXԀ[ Butwhethertheprosecutorsucceedsor  failsinmeetingthisobligation(whether,thatis,afailuretodiscloseisingood  faithorbadfaith,seeBrady,373U.S.at87),theprosecution'sresponsibilityfor  failingtodiscloseknown,favorableevidencerisingtoamateriallevelof   importanceisinescapable].)    5.TurnoverMustBeTimely.#X(X#6XX6X6XInLekav.Portuondo(2dCir.2001)#6X6X$#6X6X#X6X#6XXԀ257 @ F.3d89,106,amurdercase,thegovernmentsfailuretodisclosethenameofa R crucialeyewitnesswithinformationfavorabletothedefense untilthreebusiness d daysbeforetrial,andfailuretodisclosethesubstanceofthewitnessknowledge, &v violatedBradyandwarrantedreversal.#X6X##XX#(XXԀ#X(X#6XX6X6XAccordU.S.v.Gil(2ndCir.2002)#6X6X#6X6X#X6X#6XXԀ297 8  F.3d93(reversingaconvictionforlastminute,butbeforetrial,provisionofan J! importantBradydocumentcontainedwithinthousandsofpagesofother \" discovery.)#X6X##XX#(XX n#   6.TheDutyContinuesEvenAfterTrial.#X(X#+XX+X+XԀ(Peoplev.Garcia(1993)17 %  Cal.App.4th1169(findingBradyviolationforfailureofprosecutorstoreveal &!  impeachinginformationreceivedpostconvictionaboutthevalidityofprosecution '#! expert'stestimonyatthetrial);Imblerv.Pachtman(1976)424U.S.409,427,n.25 ($" (notingcontinuingprosecutorialdutytodiscloseafteracquiredinformationthat )*%# "castsdoubtuponthecorrectnessoftheconviction");seealsoThomasv. *<&$ Goldsmith(9thCir.1992)979F.2d746(prosecutiondutytoturnoverpossible +N'% exculpatoryevidenceonfederalhabeastoallowdefendanttoshowcolorable -`(& claimofinnocencetodefeatbarofproceduraldefault.)    7.BradyAppliestoEvidenceSupportingSuppressionIssues.(U.S.v. $ Barton(9thCir.1993)995F.2d931,935(wherethedefendantallegedthe 6 governmentagentsdestroyedevidencenecessarytoimpeachallegationsina H searchwarrantaffidavit,theappellatecourtheld"thatthedueprocessprinciple  Z announcedinBradyanditsprogenymustbeappliedtoasuppressionhearing  l involvingachallengetothetruthfulnessofallegationsinanaffidavitforasearch . ~ warrant")#+X+X#+X+X#X+X#+XX;accord#X+X##XX#Smithv.Black(5thCir.1990)904F.2d950,965-66,vacated @  onothergrounds,503U.S.930(1992)+XX+X+X;seediscussionin#X+X ##XX+ #U.S.v.Stott,245F.3d R  890,902(7thCir.2001).XX+XXԀ d  #X+X ##XX #(XX  8.BradyErrorWheretheInvestigation\ProsecutionisSlipshodorCorrupt   WarrantsSanctionsSuchasanInstruction. #X(X #+XX (Kylesv.Whitley  (1995) 514U.S.419   446n.15["when...theprobativeforceofevidencedependsonthecircumstances  inwhichitwasobtainedandthosecircumstancesraiseapossibilityoffraud,  indicationsofconscientiouspoliceworkwillenhanceprobativeforceandslovenly & workwilldiminishit"];#X+Xl #(XXԀ#X(XG #+XXU.S.v.Sager(2000)227F.3d1138,1145,relyingon 8 Kyles: WeagreewithSagerthatthedistrictcourtcommittedplainerrorand J abuseditsdiscretionbyinstructingthejurynotto`grade'theinvestigation.Inone  \ breath,thecourtmadeclearthatthejurywastodecidequestionsoffact,butinthe n other,thecourtmuddledtheissuebyinformingthejurythatitcouldnotconsider 0 possibledefectsinMorris'sinvestigation.Totellthejurythatitmayassessthe B productofaninvestigation,butthatitmaynotanalyzethequalityofthe T investigationthatproducedtheproduct,illogicallyremovesfromthejury f potentiallyrelevantinformation.)#X+X #(XX x (X(X  9.Prejudice.#X(X#+XX#+X+XI#ԀWhen theverdictisalreadyofquestionablevalidity, ! additionalevidenceofrelativelyminorimportancemightbesufficienttocreatea " reasonabledoubt.(U.S.v.Agurs(1976)427U.S.97,113.)#X+X#6XXԀ#X6X #XXX(XXXX #  #(XX(XP#(X(X  B.OtherAreastoInvestigateProsecutionError#(X(X#(XX(X  %! #(XX(XQ##X(Xo#  1.TellingWitnessesNotToTalktotheDefense,ThreateningThem, '#! HavingSexWithThem.;XX;X;X ( $" 0  a.Aprosecutingattorneymaynotorderaprosecutionwitnesstorefrain *D&$ fromtalkingwiththedefendantorhiscounsel,andthecourtsare ,V'% empoweredtodirecttheprosecutiontoannulsuchillegalcommandor -h(& sufferthesanctionofcontempt.(Schindlerv.SuperiorCourt(1958)161  Cal.App.2d513,520;Walkerv.SuperiorCourt(1957)155Cal.App.2d  134,140.)$(#(# 0  b.Threatstodefensewitnessesmaycomeinblatant(#X;XR##XXq#InreMartin(1987)44 H Cal.3d1[threateningdefensewitnessesoffthestandwarrantsgrantof  Z habeascorpus],orsubtleform,butismisconductineitherevent. l(#(#   c.Havingsexwithakeyprosecutionwitnessmayconstitutegroundsfor @  0   removalfromthecase(Peoplev.Garewal(1985)173Cal.App.3d285 R  [ Thedeputydistrictattorney'sbehaviorcertainlywouldhavejustifiedhis d  removal(forhavingsexwithaprosecutionwitness),andcertainlygrounds v  forinterestingcrossexamination.InGarewal,theprosecutor'sentireoffice   hadalreadybeendisqualifiedduetoaconflictbeforetheprosecutorwitness   trystcametolight].)@ )   8      (#(#   2.InvasionoftheDefenseCamp.Onashowingtheprosecutionplanted   informantsorthelikeinthedefensecamp,sanctionswillbeimposed.+XX+X+X(Barberv. 2 MunicipalCourt(1979)24Cal.3d742#X+X##XX #;+XX+X+XԀMorrowv.SuperiorCourt(1994)30 D Cal.App.4th1252;Boulasv.SuperiorCourt(1986)188Cal.App.3d422;People V v.Moore(1976)57Cal.App.3d437.)#X+X##XX# h nXX  3.GrandJuryMisconduct.(XXPenalCode939.71requiresthegrandjurybe < toldofexculpatoryevidence.(E.g.,#X(X#(XX Berardiv.SuperiorCourt(2007)149Cal. N App.4th476(failingtotellgrandjurythatawitnessstatedthedefendantdidnot ` dothecrime).#X(XM #(XXԀ #X(XP!#(XXInPeoplev.Backus(1979)23Cal.3d360#X(X!#(XX,392,theSupremeCourt r stated, anyprosecutorialmanipulationwhichsubstantiallyimpairsthegrand   jury'sdutytorejectchargeswhichitmaybelieveunfoundedisaninvasionofthe ! defendant'sconstitutionalrights...[and]thecourtsshouldnothesitatetovindicate " thedemandsofdueprocess.'"(citesomitted.) )   9      ׀InCummiskeyv.SuperiorCourt, #  (1992)3Cal.4th1018,#X(X "#(XXԀtheSupremeCourtruledthatsection995(a)(1)(A)maybe  usedtochallengetheproprietyoflegaladviceandinstructiongiventothegrand  jury,andundersection995thedefendantmaymovetosetasidetheindictmenton $ thegroundthat#X(X$#Ԁ(XX"themannerinwhichtheprosecutorconductedthegrandjury 6 proceedingsranafoulof...dueprocessrightsundertherelevantstatutoryand H commonlawprinciplesgoverningindictmentbygrandjuries."(Id.at1022,n.1.)  Z    4.VindictiveProsecution. Weretheaddedchargesaproductofvengeance . ~ fortheassertionofconstitutionalrights?Seecasescitedin#(X(XL#U.S.v.Jenkins(9th F  Cir.2007)494F.3d1135:(X(X"[B]ecausethegovernmentcouldhaveprosecuted X  Jenkinsforaliensmugglingwellbeforeshepresentedhertheoryofdefenseatthe j  marijuanasmugglingtrial,thetimingofthechargescreatedtheappearanceof |  vindictiveness.Thegovernment'sassertionthatitscaseagainstJenkinswasmuch   strongerafterherin#(X(X|(#(X(Xcourtadmissiondoesnotsufficetodispeltheappearanceof   vindictiveness.Wethereforeconcludethattheindictment#(X(XH*#(X(X#X(X &#(XXshouldbedismissed."  SeealsoU.S.v.Preciado-Gomez(9thCir.1976)#X(XW+#(XX#(X(X+#(X(XԀ529F.2d935,937940,cert.  denied,425U.S.953(discussingstandardsforvindictiveprosecutionclaim).#X(X,##XXB,# &   5.ExtortionateBargaining,Breaches,OtherCoerciveTactics. J 0  a.PackageDeals.(e.g., pleadguiltyorwe'llchargeyourwife.) 6XX6X6X Inre @>!  n Ibarra(1983)34Cal.3d277,277-278(whilea"package-deal"pleabargain 0 isnotcoerciveperse,thetrialcourtmustconductaninquiryintothe B totalityofthecircumstancessurroundingsuchapleatodeterminewhetherit T hasbeenundulycoercedorisinsteadfreelyandvoluntarilygiven.)f(#(# Ї0  b.LockedinTestimony.Peoplev.Allen(1986)#X6X.#6XX#6X6X4.#6X6XԀ42Cal.3d1222,  1251-1252#X6X{0##XX0#XXԀ( [A]defendantisdeniedafairtrialiftheprosecution'scase  dependssubstantiallyuponaccomplicetestimonyandtheaccomplice $ witnessisplaced,eitherbytheprosecutionorthecourt,underastrong 6 compulsiontotestifyinaparticularfashion."(Peoplev.Medina(1974)41 H Cal.App.3d438,455.)Thus,whentheaccompliceisgrantedimmunity  Z subjecttotheconditionthathistestimonysubstantiallyconformtoan  l earlierstatementgiventopolice(id.,atp.450),orthathistestimonyresult . ~ inthedefendant'sconviction(Peoplev.Green(1951)102Cal.App.2d831, @  837-839),theaccomplice'stestimonyis"taintedbeyondredemption"(Rex R  v.Robinson(1921)30B.C.R.369)anditsadmissiondeniesthedefendanta d  fairtrial.)v (#(# 0  c.BreachesbytheProsecutor.Obviousbargainbreachesaresanctionable.   6XX(Santobellov.NewYork(1971)404U.S.257.) [T]hePeopleare  ordinarilyboundbytheirstipulations,concessionsorrepresentations  regardlessofwhethercounselwastheAttorneyGeneralorthedistrict   attorney."(Peoplev.Mendez(1991)234Cal.App.3d1773,1783).InInre 2 KennethH.(2000)80Cal.App.4th143,theprosecutionmadeanagreement D withthejuvenilethatifhepassedapolygraphtest,thecasewouldbe V dismissed,butifhefailed,hewouldagreetopleadguilty.Hepassed.The h prosecutorrenegedonthedeal.Onappeal,itwasheldthatbecausethe *z juvenilehaddetrimentallyreliedonthepromisedbargain,theprosecution < couldnotbreakitsword.Theprosecutorwasorderedtomovefordismissal N ofthecase.`(#(# #6X6XQ1#6X6X0  d.WaiveroftheBreachbytheProsecutor.#X6X5#ԀU.S.v.Clark(XXԀ(9thCir.2000)#X(X:#   218F.3d1092,1095(pleaagreementsarecontractualinnatureandare ! measuredbycontractlawstandards;seealsoU.S.v.DelaFuente(9thCir. " 1993)#XX9#Ԁ8F.3d1333,1337.)Whatifthedefendantinitiallybreaches,the #  prosecutorignoresitinordertogetthedefendant'sperformancepromisedin $  thedeal?Cantheprosecutorthereafterclaimbreachandnotperform?No. %.! (XXU.S.v.Vogt(8thCir.1990)901F.2d100,102103(breachwaivedunder &@"  suchcircumstances.)(R#!(#(# 0  e.OtherPromiseBreaking. [I]6XXtwasfundamentallyunfairandaviolation &*v%# ofdueprocessfortheprosecutorinthiscasetouseattrialdefendant'sJuly 8+&$ 21,1987,statementinbreachoftheprosecutor'spromisenottodoso.Just J,'% asthedefendantinSantobellov.NewYork,supra,404U.S.257,waived  hisconstitutionalrightsandpleadedguiltyinexchangeforandinreliance  upontheprosecutor'spromisesinthepleaagreement,defendanthere $ waivedhisconstitutionalrighttoremainsilentinexchangeforandin 6 relianceupontheprosecutor'spromisenottouseincourtanything H defendantsaid.(Peoplev.Quartermain(1998)16Cal.4th600,619.) Z(#(# 0  f.TellingtheTargetCorporationThatIfitPaysDefenseFeesforits . ~ employees,itwillbeindicted.Whenthiscausesthecorporationnottopay @  employeesdefensecosts,aswastheexpectationoftheemployeesinthis R  case,itismisconductwarrantsanctions.(U.S.v.Stein(D.C.N.Y.)435 d  F.Supp.2d330.)Startingatpage356,thiscasehasanexcellentdiscussion v  oftherighttoconstitutionalfairtreatmentinacriminalcaseincludingby   theprosecution.See,e.g.,thefollowingquotefromCoppedgev.United   States(1962)#X6X=#6XX#6X6X<#6X6XԀ369U.S.438,448-449: Nogeneralrespectfor,nor  adherenceto,thelawasawholecanwellbeexpectedwithoutjudicial  recognitionoftheparamountneedforprompt,eminentlyfairandsober   criminallawprocedures.Themethodsweemployintheenforcementofour 2 criminallawhaveaptlybeencalledthemeasuresbywhichthequalityof D ourcivilizationmaybejudged.V(#(# #X6XID##XXD#XX#XXF#  6.CoercingTestimony.Peoplev.Boyer(2006)38Cal.4th412,444 *z ( coercedtestimonyofawitnessotherthantheaccusedisexcludedinorderto < protectthedefendant'sownfederaldueprocessrighttoafairtrial,andin N particular,toensurethereliabilityoftestimonyofferedagainsthim...the ` defendantmustdemonstratehowsuchmisconduct,ifany,hasdirectlyimpaired r thefreeandvoluntarynatureoftheanticipatedtestimonyinthetrialitself.)(#(#K(#     7.PrejudicialPretri6XX6X6XalandTrialStatementstotheMedia.Courts " examiningclaimsofprejudicearisingfromadversepretrialpublicitywillconsider #  whetherthatpublicityisgeneratedbyactsoftheprosecutionoritsagents.(See $  Mainev.SuperiorCourtofMendocinoCounty(1968)#6X6XI#6X6X#X6XI#6XXԀ68Cal.2d375,386387 %.! [ politicalfactorshavenoplaceinacriminalproceeding,andwhentheyarelikely &@"  toappear,ashere,theyconstituteanindependentreasonforavenuechange]; (R#!  S Delaneyv.UnitedStates(1stCir.1952)#6X6XK#6X6X#X6XK#6XXԀ199F.2d107,113115[itisanimportant )d$" considerationwhetherthegovernmentwasresponsibleforthepublicationofthe &*v%# objectionablematerialorifitemanatedfromindependentsources];Silverthornev. 8+&$ UnitedStates(9thCir.1968)#X6XM#6XX#6X6XEM#6X6XԀ400F.2d627,633["...federalcourtshavebeen J,'% sensitivetoclaimsofprejudicearisingfrompublicitywhenthatpublicityis  createdbyactsoftheGovernment"];UnitedStatesv.Denno(2ndCir.1963)#6X6X9O#6X6X#X6XN#6XXԀ313  F.2d364,373["Thepublicitypartlysponsoredbytheprosecution,created $ opinionsofguiltlongbeforetrial...."];Colemanv.Kemp(11thCir.1985)#X6XP#6XX#6X6XxP#6X6XԀ778 6 F.2d1487,1539["significantly,thecommunity'srankinglawenforcementofficer H madewidelyreportedandoutrageousstatements...."]);Statev.Bell(SupCt.La.  Z 1975)#6X6XR#6X6X#X6XQ#6XX315So.2d307,31[prosecutionemanatedpublicityconsideredinreversing  l trialcourt'svenuedecision];Statev.Stiltner(1971)#X6X{S#6XX#6X6X9S#6X6X491P.2d1043,80Wash.2d . ~ 47,52n.1[convictionreversedafter"astonishing"factthatstatereleased @  prejudicialmaterialtonewsmedia];Peoplev.Martin(1963)#6X6XT#6X6X#X6XYT#6XX19A.D.2d804,243 R  N.Y.S.2d343,344[changeofvenueorderedafterpolicesponsoredtelevised d  mediainterrogationofdefendants].)#6X6XU##X6XU# v    8.PrejudicialConflictsofInterests.Thesearenormallythemakingsof   recusalmotionsunderPenalCode+XX+X+X1424#X+XW##XXW#,butiftheinformationislatein  developing,itmaybeworthyofacollateralattack.( +XX+X+X Peoplev.Eubanks (1996)14  Cal.4th580,590#X+XX##XXX#Ԁ[ AXXAXAXAprosecutoris'notimpartialordisinterestedifhehas,oris & undertheinfluenceofotherswhohave,anaxetogrindagainstthedefendant.' 8 [Citation]];Gangerv.#XAXY#ԀPeyton(4thCir.1967)379F.2d709,714[convictionheld J violativeofFourteenthAmendmentdueprocesswhenaparttimeprosecutorwas  \ prejudiciallyconflictedbecausehealsorepresentedthedefendantswifeina n divorceaction].)AXX#AXAXY#AXAXԀ#XAX[##XX9\# 0   9.BreachofPleaBargain.(Santobellov.NewYork(1971)404U.S.257; T Buckleyv.Terhune,441F.3d688(9thCir.enbanc2006)(fifteenyearsbargained f butdefendantgot15tolife;reversed);Peoplev.Kaanehe(1977)19Cal.3d1.) x   10.ExParteCommunicationswithJudgeorJury.(E.g,=XX=X=XInreCalhoun ! (1976)17Cal.3d75[sentencereversedwherecourtreliedonexparte " communicationwithprosecutorinimposingsentence]#X=X_^##XX~^#;=XX=X=XInreHancock(1977) # 67Cal.App.3d943,#=X=X_#=X=X#X=X_#=XXԁ949)[same]#X=X|`##XX:`#.) $"    11.BXXBXBXBatsonv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79#BXBX7a#BXBX#XBXa#6XX.Aprosecutor'sexclusionof &F"  #X6Xa#BXXqualifiedpersonsbasedonraceorsexisforbiddenand#XBXYb#6XX"#6X6Xa#6X6Xoncetheopponentofa (X#! peremptorychallengehasmadeoutaprimafaciecaseofracialdiscrimination,the )j$" burdenofproductionshiftstotheproponentofthestriketocomeforwardwitha ,*|%# raceneutralexplanation.Ifaraceneutralexplanationistendered,thetrialcourt >+&$ mustthendecidewhethertheopponentofthestrikehasprovedpurposefulracial P,'% discrimination."(Purkettv.Elem(1995)514U.S.765,767.)  0  a.IsThereaSufficientRecordonAppeal?Indeed,doestheappellate $ recordcontainthevoirdire!probablynotunlessrequestedbytrialcounsel 6 orappealcounselinanaugment).SeePeoplev.Buchanan(2006)143Cal. H App.4th139,141:"Itshouldsurprisenoonethat,asareviewingcourt,we  Z areonlyabletoconsidermattersadequatelyraisedintherecord."Other  l thanthelistofnamessuggestingthechallengedjurorswereHispanicinthe . ~ case,therewasnothinginthisrecordregardingethnicityofpotential, @  challenged,orseatedjurors.Numerouspersonswithsimilarnames R  remainedonthepanel.Inshort,therecordwasinsufficienttopreservethe d  issue.v (#(# 0  b.RaisingBatsonviaIAC.TheremaybeanIACinquiryintowhydefense   counseldidnotobjecttotheprosecutor'suseofperemptorychallengesto  the reprehensibleorunprofessionalactofexcludingjurorsbasedonrace.  (VirginIslandsv.Forte(3dCir.1989)#X6Xb#6XX#6X6Xc#6X6XԀ865F.2d59,62-63.)This,ofcourse,   isconsistentwiththegeneraldutyofdefensecounseltoselectanunbiased 2 jury.(Hughesv.U.S.,258F.3d453(6thCir.2001)#X6Xj#6XX#6X6Xj#6X6XԀ(petitioner'scounselwas D ineffectiveforfailingtochallengethevenirepersonafterheradmissionof V bias.)h(#(# #X6Xk#+XX  12.SuppressionofEvidencebyFrustratingDiscovery.#X+Xm##XX$l#(XXԀWhatifthe < prosecutionorinvestigatorstellinterrogatingagentsnottotakenoteswhen N interviewingfriendlywitnessessoasnottorecordachangingorevolvingstory? ` Ithasbeenheldthatwheretheagentofonesidewouldordinarilyhavetaken r notes,itwasacontempttoavoidcompliancewithdiscoveryordersbyinstructing   himnottowriteareport.(InreTonySerra(9thCir.#X(Xm#8XX8X8XԀ1973)484F.2d947.)#X8Xp##XXp#XX(XXԀSee ! #(X(Xp#(X(XYoungbloodv.WestVirginia(2006)126S.Ct.2188(policeofficer'sinstruction " todestroypotentiallyexculpatoryevidence[notecontradictingvictims'account #  andsupportingdefendant's]statesaBradyclaim;remandedforhearing.Seealso $  Rolandv.SuperiorCourt  (2004) #(X(Xq#(X(X#X(Xp#(XXԀ 124Cal.App.4th154 [defensecounselfailedto %.! disclosetotheprosecutorrelevantstatementsmadebywitnesseswhichincluded &F"  unrecordedoralstatements;held,discoveryaviolation.])#(X(Xr##X(Xs#XX(XX (X#! #X(Xt##XXjt#  C.GettingResourcestoInvestigateOutsidetheRecordConduct. ,*|%#   Imagineoneormoreoftheabove(orother)issueshaveemergedandyou @+&$ needtoinvestigate.DoyougototheCourtofAppealandseekfundsaswasdone R,'% intheinfamousSanDiegoSyndoMobcase(whereitwasdiscoveredthe  prosecutionagentsentertainedthesnitchbyorchestratingencounterswithhis  loverattheDA'soffice!),ortothesuperiorcourt?Thegeneralrighttosuch $ investigativeservicescannotbedoubtedatthetriallevel(Corenevskyv.Superior 6 Court(1984)36Cal.3d307[rightoftrialcounseltoancillaryservices];Tranv. H SuperiorCourt(2001)XX(XX92Cal.App.4th1149#X(Xqx##XXRx#Ԁ[evenretainedtrialcounselcanget  Z appointedancillaryresourcesforanindigentclient]),or,tosomeextentatleast,on  l appeal.(InreHwamei(1974)37Cal.App.3d554,556557[ troubledbythe . ~ possiblefailureofcounseltothoroughlyinvestigatethedefensesofdiminished @  capacityorinsanity,this[appeals]courtdecidedtoseekanobjectivepsychiatric R  evaluationofthedefendant']); 6XX6X6X InreKetchel  (1968)68Cal.2d397,401402[right d  topostconvictionpsychiatricassistance #X6Xz#;XXoftheinformedpsychiatristcouldlead |  tothepossiblebasesforcollateralattack.Itcertainlycouldassistcounselinthe   developmentofoverallstrategy.Therighttosuchaidshouldhardlybecondi   tioneduponashowingofitspreciseapplicationorutility#X;X{#6XX#6X6X {#6X6X].)#X6Xd}##XX}#     VI.SampleArguments.  & XX6XX  A.TheBaseballAnalogy. Overthelengthofthistrialtheprosecutor L mademajoreffortstoprejudiceappellantsfairtrialrights,eachtimestriking"foul d blows,"notfairones.(See Bergerv.UnitedStates (1935)295U.S.78,88.) &v    1.TheFirstStrike:OpeningArgument. >   2.SecondStrike:DuringTrial P   3.StrikeThree:FinalArgument. CatotheEldersensedthatCarthage b defeated,butstillstanding,wouldalwaysposeathreattoGreekcivilization.He z concludedallhisspeechesdeclaring,"Carthagodelendaest!"Thisprosecutor  hadasimilaronetracktheme.Byignoringjudicialrulingsandinterjecting   prejudicialcommentsdeclaredofflimitsbythecourt,theprosecutordestroyedher ! ownCarthage"appellantsfairtrialrights. "   B.NotReasonedandObjective .Aprosecutor'sfinalargumenttothejury $6  isacriticaladdress,comingasitdoesfromarepresentativeofthePeople.It %N! "carriesgreatweightandmustthereforebereasonablyobjective[citation]." '`"  (Peoplev.Pitts(1990)223Cal.App.3d606,694.)Prosecutorialstatementsare "(r#! assumedtomakeanimpressionuponthemindsofthejurorsbecausetheoffice 4)$" "carriessuchweightwithajurythathisstatementoffactpredicatedonhis F*%# knowledge,ratherthanontheevidence,constitutereversibleerror."(Peoplev. X+&$ Purvis(1963)60Cal.2d323,341.) j,'% Ї  C.A#6X6Xj~#6X6XrguingforDismissal .#X6X~#+XX Theappropriatesanctionisreversaland  dismissalforinvasionofthedefensecamp.InBarberv.MunicipalCourt(1979)  24Cal.3d742,thecourtfounddismissalwastheappropriateremedyfor * governmentmisconductinvasionsofthedefensecampholdingthatalesser < remedywouldbeinadequatebecausetherewouldbenoincentiveforstateagents N torefrainfromfurtherviolations.(Id.at759.)  `   Fortrialmisconduct,inPeoplev.Batts(2003)30Cal.4th660,665-666,the 4  SupremeCourtheldthestatedoublejeopardyissomewhatbroaderthanthe F  federalprotection(seebelow)tobarretrial: whentheprosecution,believing(in X  viewofeventsthatoccurredduringtrial)thatadefendantislikelytosecurean j  acquittalatthattrial,knowinglyandintentionallycommitsmisconductinorderto |  thwartsuchanacquittal.Inthelattercircumstance,however,retrialisbarred   underthestatedoublejeopardyclauseonlyifacourt,reviewingallofthe   circumstancesasofthetimeofthemisconduct,findsnotonlythattheprosecution  believedthatanacquittalwaslikelyandcommittedmisconductforthepurposeof  thwartingsuchanacquittal,butalsodetermines,fromanobjectiveperspective, & thattheprosecutorialmisconductdeprivedthedefendantofareasonableprospect 8 ofanacquittal. J   Theusualremedyforprejudicialmisconductisaretrial.Federaldouble n jeopardyconsiderationssupportdismissalwhereobjectionsandrepeatedjudicial 0 admonitionsdidnotdeterthecontinuedmisconductandthecourtfindsthe B prosecutorintentionallycommittedmisconducttogainamistrial.(Oregonv. T Kennedy(1982)456U.S.667,676("Onlywherethegovernmentalconductin f questionisintendedto'goad'thedefendantintomovingforamistrialmaya x defendantraisethebarofdoublejeopardytoasecondtrialafterhavingsucceeded   inabortingthefirstonhisownmotion.") ! #+X+X#+X+X  #X+Xq#6XX#6X6Xl#6X6XVII.Sp#6X6X##X6X#ecificExamplesofProsecutionError #   Inadditiontothosecitedabove,thefollowingexamples,innoparticular %8! order,arelittlenuggetsthatmaybeusefulinreviewingtherecordforerror.  &J"    AlmostAllTrialMisconductInvolvesaProsecutorPuttingImproper  )p$" MatterBeforetheJury. [W]hileprosecutorsarenotrequiredtodescribe 4*%# sinnersassaints,theyarerequiredtoestablishthestateofsinbyadmissible L+&$ evidenceunaidedbyaspersionsthatrestoninadmissibleevidence,hunch,or ^,'% spite.(U.S.v.Schindler(9thCir.1980)614F.2d227,228.)    ALawyerCannotUseSubterfugetoPlaceBeforeaJuryMatters $ WhichitCannotProperlyConsider. (Peoplev.Daggett(1990)225Cal.App.3d 8 751,759.) Itisimpropertoaskquestionswhichclearlysuggesttheexistenceof  P factswhichwouldhavebeenharmfultothedefendant,intheabsenceofagood  b faithbeliefbytheprosecutorthatthequestionswouldbeansweredinthe $ t affirmative,orwiththebeliefonhispartthatthefactscouldbeproved,anda 6  purposetoprovethem,iftheirexistenceshouldbedenied.(Peoplev.Perez H  (1962)58Cal.2d221,241,quotingPeoplev.LoCigno(1961)193Cal.App.2d Z  360,388.)Perezfoundimproperaskingawitnessifhehadbeenthreatenedafter l  thelattergavetestimonyinsupportofthedefendant'sdenialofguilt.Thewitness ~  respondedinthenegativeandtheprosecutordidnotfollowupwithprooftothe   contrary.TheSupremeCourtheldthequestionimproper.AccordPeoplev.   Wagner(1975)13Cal.3d612,619;+XXPeoplev.Wells  (1893)100Cal.459,465;#X+Xh#Ԁsee  alsoU.S.v.Davenport(9thCir.1985)753F.2d1460,reversingaconvictionfor  failureofthetrialcourttorequiretheprosecutortoestablishafactualpredicatefor . suchquestions.;XX @ #X;X#  AProsecutorHastheDutytoSeeThatHisorHerWitnessesVolunteer d NoStatementThatWouldBeInadmissible andmustbeespeciallycarefulto (x guardagainststatementsthatwouldalsobeprejudicial.(Peoplev.Schiers(1971) @ 19Cal.App.3d102,113114.)Thisincludesadutytowarnthewitnessagainst R volunteeringinadmissiblestatements.(SeePeoplev.Warren(1988)45Cal.3d d 471,482483.) v   NoKnowingUseofPerjuredTestimony. (Mooneyv.Holohan