WPC>n I /V4A1%ӷ>X*Y15A1x,gQ"/R\QN=B@s/DhmepHuk,ZHyN{d߭&r)3GYEVqj $zE8q>({; 1nےMDTJڌPciسmigĺΠTOq#^ߋ:Q\<ET+mMO1 B)`W8Cy1SЀq!D?-'FI xe$w9$oVNq ^%GDG(xKK[7bPkcydžva5oT&b AGJ IK8}hgN"RwWwdzǮÙ"o{Bf| ґND lϭǯW&#+@o-)#: UTN %Q 0:W 0U 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0B 0 0~ 0= 0 0 0\ 0 0 0- 0 0C 0 0 0q 0 0 0K 0 0i U!> ^ +!w7!4;!O!^! m`!U$@w!U>!! ! !c" 0Nr""N%U2%%& 0'G((o* 0 ~`2U*2 0 D3kL3! : DbDREJ 1uM 729N kNkNkNkNkNkNkNkNkNkNkNkNkNkNkNkNkN <Z_;[ D[ B[[[[[[ 0D{\ 0m\\\\ 4,],],]``]`] 6]j]`^U :7dUHqdqd 1edddeeeeethhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhfkHP LaserJet 6L,,,,0(I Z6Times New Roman Regular($USUS.,*+ (_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  &## $_   L23   L  \  `&Times New RomanR6 Z05:i+003|x*U(I Z(Times New Roman ~ Z&Roman-WP NormalHF,Avila1 Y_Peoplev._Avila_Ԁ(1967)253Cal.App.2d308(O$  7($USUS.,    7    _ԀTheCommentarytosection405givesexamplesofthetypesoftestimony  thatcanbechallengedinthismannerincludingthequalificationsofanexpert  witness( theproponentmustpersuadethejudgethathisexpertisqualified,andit $ iserrorforthejudgetosubmitthequalificationsoftheexperttothejury.)Two 6 examplesofthetypesofexpertschallengeableunderthissectionarethoseon H sanityandhandwriting. Thewitness'qualificationstoexpresssuchanopinion,  Z therefore,aretobedeterminedbythejudgeunderSection405....* ZRoman-WP   7($USUS.,    2    _Ԁ TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasheldthatPeoplev.Wheeler(1978)22  Cal.3d258#  g#  ,imposesthesamestandardasBatson . (Peoplev.Box(2000)23  Cal.4th1153,1188,fn.7#  #.)0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5   = 7($USUS.,    8    _ԀCalifornialimitsonmentalhealthtestimonyaresetforthinPenalCode  sections25,28and29.Buttheconstitutionalbottomlineonexcludingsuch  evidenceisnotatallclearaftertheSupremeCourtopinioninClarkv.Arizona $ (2006)__U.S.__;126S.Ct.2709,whichupheldtheexclusionofcertainguilt 6 phasepsychiatrictestimony,butdrewnobrightlinesforfutureguidance. e 7($USUS.,    4    _ԀTherearehundredsofcasesholdingaclaimofmisconductiswaivedfor  lackofobjection.' ' ' Ԁ(E.g.,Peoplev.Samayoa(1997)15Cal.4th795,841;Peoplev.  _Gionis_(1995)9Cal.4th1196,1215;# ' #(  Peoplev.Green(1980)27Cal.3d1,24# ( #'  #' ' #' ' .)# ' S##  #Ԁ $ Therearerareexceptionssuchasin0  0 0 Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800,where 6 themisconductwaspervasive,afewobjectionsweremade,anditwouldhave H beenfruitlesstocontinuetoobject.Leavingtheissuetoanineffectiveassistance  Z ofcounselclaimonappealisnotanacceptablealternativegiventhatthestandard  l ofreviewchangesfrom # 0 8#(   Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,wherefederal . ~ constitutionalviolationsrequirereversalunlessthebeneficiaryoftheerrorcan @  provebeyondareasonabledoubtthatitdidnotaffecttheresult,tothemuchless R  generousstandardof# ( 1#'  _Strickland_Ԁv.Washington(1984)466U.S.668.# ' ##  W#(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  \  `Times(#$  0   a 7($USUS.,    5    _Ԁ' ' ' ԀTocuremisconductonthespot,havethecourttakeacurefrom# ' i##  #People  v.Bolton0  0 0 (1979)23Cal.3d208,215,fn.5:# 0 d##  #  '   Butwhenthedefensecounsel  requestscautionaryinstructions,thetrialjudgecertainlymustgivethemifhe $ agreesmisconducthasoccurred.Heshouldaimtomakeastatementtothejury 6 thatwillcounteractfullywhateverprejudicetothedefendantresultedfromthe H prosecutor'sremarks.Inthepresentcase,suchacounterbalancingstatementmight  Z havetakenthefollowingform:LadiesandGentlemenofthejury,theprosecutor  l hasjustmadecertainuncalledforinsinuationsaboutthedefendant.Iwantyouto . ~ knowthattheprosecutorhasabsolutelynoevidencetopresenttoyoutobackup @   theseinsinuations.Theprosecutor'simproperremarksamounttoanattemptto  prejudiceyouagainstthedefendant.Wereyoutobelievetheseunwarranted  insinuations,andconvictthedefendantonthebasisofthem,Iwouldhaveto $ declareamistrial.Therefore,youmustdisregardtheseimproper,unsupported 6 _remarks."_ H # ' (##  #  7($USUS.,    3    _Ԁ '  ԀThisissurelyerroralthoughithasbeendeemedharmlesserrorbecause  trialcourtsgavecurativeadmonitionstothejury.# ' ##  f#0  0 0 (# 0 ##  #       U.S.v.Tutino(2ndCir.1989)#    )#    #   #  883F.2d1125[defensecounselknewhisclientwasguilty;curativeinstruction $ given];#  #     Ԁ#   #     Homanv.U.S. #   #    Ԁ(8thCir.1960)#   4#   #    q#    Ԁ279F.2d767[argumentthatdefense 6 counselknewdefendantwasguiltydeemedimproperandcurativeinstruction H given]#   #   ;#   #   Ԁ#   # U.S.v.Kirkland   (9thCir.1980)#   N##  #  Ԁ637F.2d654[   defensecounselknew  Z theirclientswere"guiltyassin;"curativeinstructiongiven].#   ##  #0  0 0 ԀItis"improperforthe " r prosecutortoarguetothejurythatdefensecounseldoesnotbelieveinhisclient's 4  defense."]However,inPeoplev.Thompson(1988)45Cal.3d86,112114,where F  itwasarguedonappealthatsuchaprosecutorialcommentwasmadebecause X  defensecounseldidnotobject,itwasheldnoterrorandcouldhavebeencuredif j  itwere.# 0 ##  #=Bossert1 X_Peoplev._Bossert_Ԁ(1910)14Cal.App.111 (charlessevilla.comO]nce S.Ct EvidHarberMontoyaPahlavanMichaelsSummageTullisBalkcom LekaPortuondo"missimpressionsFORECITECordero MoskBousleyEngleWeinheimerPurkettKesserDretkePruntyAguilarGuizar D.OrE]videnceLarcoMattsonKarisr]elevantLittlefieldIzazagaSandeffercellmateTillisSaucedoYoungbloodKylesWhitelyAvilaBossertValladaresunblowHavlenaBabineauBranerDonnellyrecrossAltemoseRisleyWefaldHoveySattenCoddingtonhypotheticalsShomer I.Ld]oubtsProferredi]nconsistent L.EdSayetsittyYukinsRemmerCal.AppNeslerTownselFosselman  7($USUS.,    6    _ԀInCareyv._Musladin_(12/11/2006)__U.S.__,      127S.Ct.649#   ##  #,thecourt  reversedagrantofreliefbytheNinthCircuitwherespectatorsworebuttonswith  thephotoofthevictimonit;theCourtheldthattherewasnoexistingSupreme $ Courtdecisionapplyingitsrulestononstateactors(likeguards)sotherewasno 6 basisforgrantingreliefunderAEDPA.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)@i) 7($USUS.,    12    _ԀXXԀ# XXg#  '  Courtsexaminingclaimsofprejudicearisingfromadversepretrial  publicitywillconsiderwhetherthatpublicityisgeneratedbyactsofthe  prosecutionoritsagents.See S Delaneyv.UnitedStates (1stCir.1952)# ' #'  #' ' #' ' 199F.2d $ 107,113115(itisanimportantconsiderationwhetherthegovernmentwas 6 responsibleforthepublicationoftheobjectionablematerialorifitemanatedfrom H  independentsources); U Silverthornev.UnitedStates(9thCir.1968)# ' *#'  #' ' l#' ' Ԁ400F.2d627,  633("...federalcourtshavebeensensitivetoclaimsofprejudicearisingfrom  publicitywhenthatpublicityiscreatedbyactsoftheGovernment.");United $ Statesv._Denno_(2ndCir.1963)# ' #'  #' ' -#' ' Ԁ313F.2d364,373["Thepublicitypartly 6 sponsoredbytheprosecution,createdopinionsofguiltlongbeforetrial...."]; H Colemanv.Kemp(11thCir.1985)#' ' #' ' # ' #'  Ԁ778F.2d1487,1539["significantly,the  Z community'srankinglawenforcementofficermadewidelyreportedand  l outrageousstatements..."];Statev.Bell(SupCt.La.1975)# ' 4#'  #' ' #' ' Ԁ315So.2d307,31 . ~ [prosecutionemanatedpublicityconsideredinreversingtrialcourt'svenue @  decision]; a  f Statev._Stiltner_(1971)# ' R#'  #' ' #' ' Ԁ491P.2d1043,80Wash.2d47,52n.1 R  [convictionreversedafter"astonishing"factthatstatereleasedprejudicialmaterial d  tonewsmedia];Peoplev.Martin(1963)# ' #'  #' '  #' ' Ԁ19A.D.2d804,243N.Y.S.2d343,344 v  [changeofvenueorderedafterpolicesponsoredtelevisedmediainterrogationof   _defendants].)# '  ##  Y #_TDelaney v. United States 1 U_ Delaneyv.UnitedStates ,199F.2d107,113115(1stCir.1952)WSilverthorne v. United States1 d v_ _Silverthorne_Ԁv.UnitedStates ,400F.2d627,633(9thCir.1968)($$  0  (.3Ly$ !USUS.,    0  .dState v. Stiltner (I)1 V_ Statev._Stiltner_ ,491P.2d1043gState v. Stiltner (II)1 `_Statev._Stiltner_,80Wash.2d47,52n.1(1971)  7($USUS.,    1    _Ԁi i i TheABAGuidelineswerefirstpublishedin1989andwererevisedin  2003.See# i f#i  www.abanet.org/deathpenalty.*# i :#i  Ԁ# i #j  Wigginsv.Smith# j #i  Ԁ(2003)# i H#i  #i i #i i Ԁ539U.S.510,  523,statedtheGuidelinesare# i #i  Ԁdefiningprevailingnormsofreasonable $ representation.# i V#i  ԀSeealso# i ##  #Rompillav.Beard(2005)545U.S.374,387;_Strickland_ 6 v.Washington(1984)466U.S.668,688(referringtoABADefenseFunction H Standards).i  i i   Z # i 4##  S#.\  `"TimesNewRoman7\  `0TimesNewRoman,Italic 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.  7($USUS.,    10    _Ԁ  Hence,evenifthedefendantdidnottestify,thetrialcourthasasua  spontedutytogiveselfdefenseinstructionifthereissubstantialcircumstantial  evidenceofselfdefense,eithercompleteorimperfect.(SeePeoplev.DeLeon $ (1992)10Cal.App.4th815,824,citingPeoplev.Wickersham(1982)32Cal.3d 6 307,326.) Substantialevidenceofadefendantsstateofmind,includingan H honestbutunreasonablebeliefinthenecessitytodefendagainstimminentperil  Z tolife(CALJIC5.17),maybepresentwithoutthedefendantstestimony.  l [Citations.][Originalemphasis.](DeLeon,supra,at824.)#   g# j 7($USUS.,    11    _Ԁ'  Thetrialcourthasadutytoinstructonallapplicableprinciplesoflaw,  includingdefenses.# ' h#'  ԀTherighttopresentadefenseisacomponentofthefederal  guaranteeofdueprocessoflaw.(Peoplev.Woodward(2004)116Cal.App.4th $ 821,834,citingCranev.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.683,690.)# ' !#  !USUS.,  _    9  Jacksonv.Calderon(9thCir.2000)211F.3d1148,states: Counsel's  meansofavoidingtheproblemposedbyCal.PenalCode29wastorelyon  hypotheticalquestionsposedtoDr.Aniline,theonemedicalexpertwhodid Z testify.(Id.at1159.)CounselposedahypotheticalquestiontoDr.Anilineasto / whetherthehypotheticalpsychologicalcounterpartofdefendantJacksoncould T premeditate.(Ibid.)Whetheryoucangothatfarisunlikely,butworthtrying. !USUS.,  _         8XXdd8#    o#    #   P#'     `  @ԀMAKINGAWINNINGRECORD  d    `     h by <     `  0  CharlesM.Sevillax (#(#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#CHARLESM.SEVILLA|(#(#    `    LawOfficesofCharlesSevilla     `    1010SecondAvenue,Suite1825     `    SanDiego,CA92101-4902      `    Telephone:(619)232-2222 !    `    www.charlessevilla.com "&     `    February17,2007  $J   88XXdXXd8@" TABLEOFCONTENTS   INTRODUCTION""J(#. 1 & I.0  GENERALTIPSONRECORDMAKING#""J(#.,(#(##2 J   A.0 ` TalktotheClient#""J(#.&` (#` (##2  n   B.0 ` KnowtheRealRules#""J(#.00'` (#` (##3 B     ` 1. DealingwiththeCourtsIndividualizedRules""J(#.F3 f    C.0 ` FileaTrialBrief#""J(#.&` (#` (##3     D.0 ` MaketheProsecutorSatisfyHis/herBurdenofEstablishing` (#` (#    ` theRelevanceandFoundationforEvidence""J(#.vv=3    E.0 ` ReacttoSurpriseEvidencewithaMotiontoExclude,4` (#` (#    ` andFailingThat,AskforaContinuance""J(#...;4 F   F.0 ` IfYouWantAlltheEvidenceIn,RememberEvidenceCode356#""J(#.!!P` (#` (##4 j   G.0 ` UseOffersofProoftoMakeaRecordofEvidencethe>` (#` (#    ` CourtExcludes""J(#."5 P   H.0 ` IfYouWanttoRelyonanObjectionofCocounselDuringthet` (#` (#    ` Trial,Fine,ButPutintheRecordThatYouAreDoingSo""J(#.L5       I.0 ` KnowWhento:Object,AskforanInstructionandMistrial#""J(#.XXN` (#` (##5 "   J.0 ` GetRulingsandGetThemontheRecord#""J(#.:` (#` (##5 $    K.0 ` AlwaysMakePenalCode1118.1MotionsattheEnd&D" ` (#` (#    ` oftheDAscaseinChief""J(#.-6 (V#!   L.0 ` DontEndorsetheCourtsGeneralInstructions#""J(#.B` (#` (##6 **z%#  <+&$   M.0 ` DontBuyIntoCALCRIMUnlessYouareConvincedItisCorrect#""J(#. " "Q` (#` (##6    N.0 ` DontLetACourtIntimidateYouByChidingthatYour$` (#` (#    ` ArgumentisFrivolousBecauseEveryCourtThatHas 6    ` Consideredit,HasRejectedit""J(#.ZZ26 H   O.0 ` FederalizeEveryObjectionandMotion#""J(#.9` (#` (##8  l II.0  RECORDMAKINGONSPECIFICISSUES@ (#(#   A.0 ` MakingaRecordofBatsonv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79 d  Challenges#""J(#.v v ` (#` (##8 v     ` 1.StepOneDefenseBurden""J(#.28      ` 2.StepTwoProsecutorsBurden""J(#.79     ` 3.StepThreeCourtsBurden""J(#.,,49 2   B.0 ` DealingwithVideoandAudioTapeProsecutionEvidence#""J(#.J` (#` (##9 V    ` 1.GetaTranscriptWellBeforeTrial""J(#.ll;9 *z    ` 2.ChecktheTranscriptAgainsttheTapeandFlag N    ` AlltheObjectionableMaterial""J(#.89 `    ` 3.MakeaMotiontoRedact<"<"I(#.010      `  a.Expressionsoftheofficersbeliefinthe "    `  guiltofadefendant<"<"I(#.@@310 #     `  b.Expressionsbytheofficerthatthe victim %.!    `  istellingthetruth<"<"I(#.310 &@"     `  c.Referencestopriorcrimesorbadacts<"<"I(#.D10 )d$"    ` 4.FederalizetheMotiontoRedact<"<"I(#.811 8+&$ Ї   ` 5.ArgueThatNoLimitingInstructionCanAlleviatePrejudice<"<"I(#. S11     ` 6.CitetheSupportingCaseLaw<"<"I(#.511 $    ` 7.ObjecttotheTapeorTranscriptGoingtothe H    ` JuryinDeliberations<"<"I(#.nn/12  Z    ` 8.AlloftheAboveApplytoVideoInterviewEvidence<"<"I(#.<<K12 . ~    ` 9.TaleoftheTapes<"<"I(#.  *13 R      C.0 ` MakingaRecordwithEvidentiaryObjections:Overcomingv ` (#` (#    ` 352toGetYourEvidenceAdmitted<"<"I(#.^^713      ` 1.ProbativeValue<"<"I(#.(13     ` 2. TheConstitutionalImperative<"<"I(#.614      ` 3.JudicialMandate<"<"I(#.  )14 D    ` 4. Substantiallyoutweighed<"<"I(#.115 h    ` 5. Necessitatesundueconsumptionoftime<"<"I(#.?15 <    ` 6. Createssubstantialdangerofundueprejudice<"<"I(#.F16 `    ` 7. Confusingtheissues,orofmisleadingthejury<"<"I(#.H16     D.0 ` Fighting1054toGetYourImpeachmentorLate"` (#` (# Ѐ ComingEvidenceIn<"<"I(#.017 #    E. ` FightingtoMakeaRecordoftheStates %4! ЀInvestigativeMisconduct<"<"I(#.720 &F"    F. ` FightingtoMakeARecordWhenYourWitnessNoShows<"<"I(#.::H21 )j$"    ` 1.InvokethePoweroftheCourttoEnforcetheSubpoena<"<"I(#.&&N21 >+&$ Ї   ` 2.IftheMarshalWon'torCan't,GetaContinuance<"<"I(#.I22     ` 3.FailingTheAbove,CounselShouldHaveThe $    ` WitnessDeclaredUnavailableandHavePreviously 6    ` TestimonyoftheWitnessReadtotheJury<"<"I(#.\\C22 H   G. ` FightingtoMakeaRecordofProsecutorialMisconduct<"<"I(#.I22  l   H. ` FightingtoMakeaRecordWhentheCourtImposesTimeLimits<"<"I(#.^!^!P26 @    I. ` FightingtoMakeaRecordofSpectatorDisplaysbeforetheJury<"<"I(#.!!S27 d    J.0 ` FighttoMakeaRecordWithInformants#<"<"I(#.bb:` (#` (##28     K.0 ` FightingtoMakeaRecordToExcludeProsecutionExperts#<"<"I(#.XXL` (#` (##28    L.0 ` FightingtoMakeaRecordWithYourDefense ` (#` (#    ` MentalHealthExpert<"<"I(#.RR(29 2    ` 1.GetRelevantInformationandWitnessestotheExpert<"<"I(#.M29 V    ` 2.PreparationforTrialTestimony<"<"I(#.hh830 *z    ` 3.DrawingouttheImpairmentanditsConsequences N    ` totheDefendant<"<"I(#.*30 `   M.0 ` FightingtoMakeaRecordWithAn ` (#` (#    ` Eyewitness/MistakenIDDefense<"<"I(#.233 !   N.0 ` FightingforYourTailoredInstructions#<"<"I(#.;` (#` (##33 #     ` 1.Inevaluatingprofferedinstructions,acourtmust %.!    ` viewthesupportingevidenceinalightmostfavorable &@"     ` tothepartyrequestingtheinstruction<"<"I(#.~~A34 (R#!    ` 2.Courtmustinstructonsupporteddefensetheories<"<"I(#.J34 &*v%#  8+&$    ` 3.TestforGivingRequestedInstructions<"<"I(#.?34     ` 4.Adefendantneednottestifytobeentitledtoinstructions<"<"I(#.T35 $    ` 5.TheProferredInstructionIsNotInconsistentand, H    ` InAnyEvent,aDefendantIsEntitledto  Z    ` InconsistentDefenses<"<"I(#./35  l    ` 6.Failuretoinstructuponadefendant'stheoryofthe @     ` casesupportedbysubstantialevidenceviolatesthe R  Ѐ0  0` (#(#defendant'sconstitutionalrighttodefendhimself#<"<"I(#.L` (#` (##35 d   O.FightingtoMakeaRecordonMediaMisconductbyLawEnforcement<"<"I(#. N379Ԉ    0 P.FightingtoMakeaRecordofJudicialMisconduct<"<"I(#.ll>38  III.0  MAKINGARECORDWITHMOTIONSFORNEWTRIAL#<"<"I(#.9(#(##39 2   A.0 ` JuryMisconduct#<"<"I(#.#` (#` (##39 V   B.0 ` DocumentingTrialIAC#<"<"I(#.**)` (#` (##42 *z   C.0 ` UsingtheMotionforNewTrialtoPutinEvidenceN` (#` (#    ` ThatMayBeMissingfromtheRecord<"<"I(#.742 `  CONCLUSION<"<"I(#. 42    Ѐ      TABLEOFAUTHORITIES       FEDERALCASES  8   Aguilarv.Alexander,125F.3d815""J(#.,9  ^ AltemoseConst.Co.andEnergyContractingCo.v.N.L.R.B., 2    (3rdCir.1975)514F.2d8<"<"I(#.(27 D  Arizonav.Youngblood(1988)488U.S.51<"<"I(#.220 h  Baileyv.UnitedStates,516U.S.137""J(#.ll/7   Barkerv.Yukins(6thCir.1999)199F.3d867<"<"I(#.736  Batsonv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79""J(#.88/8 $ Beanv.Calderon(9thCir.1998)163F.3d1073<"<"I(#.ZZ829 H Beardsleev.Woodford(9thCir.2003)358F.3d560<"<"I(#.<36 l Beaversv.Balkcom,636F.2d114""J(#.hh*2 @ Bergerv.U.S.(1935)295U.S.78<"<"I(#.88+11 d Bousleyv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.614""J(#.~~67   Bradleyv.Duncan(9thCir.2002)315F.3d1091<"<"I(#.936 " Brutonv.U.S.(1968)391U.S.123 E(#.,11,13 $  Careyv._Musladin_(12/11/2006)__U.S.__;127S.Ct.649<"<"I(#.00B27 &D"  Castillov.McFadden(9thCir.2004)399F.3d993<"<"I(#.nn;11 )h$" Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18<"<"I(#.VV223 <+&$ Clarkv.Arizona(2006)__U.S.__;126S.Ct.2709<"<"I(#.=30  Condev.Henry(9thCir.1999)198F.3d734<"<"I(#.PP536 $ Cooperv.Sowders(6thCir.1988)837F.2d284<"<"I(#.810 H Crawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.36<"<"I(#.3 @ 11  l Davisv.Strick(2ndCir.2001)270F.3d111 p <"<"I(#.pp236 @  Donnellyv.DeChristophero(1974)416U.S.637<"<"I(#.826 d  Englev.Isaac(1982)456U.S.107""J(#.,7   Fowlerv.SacramentoCountySheriff'sDepartment    (9thCir.2005)421F.3d1027<"<"I(#.,14  Grayv.Maryland(1998)523U.S.185<"<"I(#..11 2 Hartv.Gomez,174F.3d1067<"<"I(#.&26 V Holbrookv.Flynn(1986)475U.S.560<"<"I(#.::/28 *z Holmesv.SouthCarolina(2006)126S.Ct.1727 E(#.814,36 N Homanv.U.S.(8thCir.1960)279F.2d767<"<"I(#.423 r Hoveyv.Ayers(9thCir.2006)458F.3d892<"<"I(#.>>529 ! Jacksonv.Calderon(9thCir.2000)211F.3d1148<"<"I(#.bb;32 #  Kesserv.Cambra(9thCir.2006)465F.3d351""J(#.79 %.! Kylesv.Whitely(1995)514U.S.419<"<"I(#..20 (R#! Lekav.Portuondo,257F.3d89""J(#.\\(4 &*v%#  8+&$ Maurerv.DepartmentofCorrections(8thCir.1994)32F.3d1286<"<"I(#.((J10  McClainv.Prunty(9thCir.2000)217F.3d1209""J(#.99 $ MillerElv.Dretke(2004)545U.S.231""J(#.zz19 H Moorev.Dempsey(1923)261U.S.86<"<"I(#.-27  l Norrisv.Risley(9thCir.1990)878F.2d1178<"<"I(#.828 @  Parkerv.Gladden(1966)385U.S.363<"<"I(#./37 d  Purkettv.Elem(1995)514U.S.765""J(#.$$-8   Reedv.Ross(1984)468U.S.1""J(#.RR(7  Remmerv.UnitedStates(1954)347U.S.227<"<"I(#.537   Rompillav.Beard,545U.S.374""J(#.)2 D Sagerv.Maass,907F.Supp.1412""J(#.>>*9 h Sagerv.Maass(9thCir.1996)84F.3d1212<"<"I(#.511 < Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668R!R!F(#.VV02,23 ` U.S.v.Brooke,4F.3d1480<"<"I(#.%27   U.S.v.Gil,297F.3d93""J(#.| | "4 " U.S.v.Harber(9thCir.1995)53F.3d236<"<"I(#.510 $  U.S.v.Rutgard(9thCir.1997)116F.3d1270<"<"I(#.726 &@"  UnitedStatesv.Span(9thCir.1996)75F.3d1383""J(#.ff<6 )d$" U.S.v.Binder(9thCir.1985)769F.2d595<"<"I(#.510 8+&$ U.S.v.Binder(9thCir.1985)769F.2d595<"<"I(#.612  U.S.v.Douglas(7thCir.1987)818F.2d1317<"<"I(#.736 6 U.S.v.EscobardeBright(9thCir.1984)742F.2d1196<"<"I(#.XXA37  Z U.S.v.Hernandez(9thCir.1994)27F.3d1403<"<"I(#.::812 . ~ U.S.v.Jones,982F.2d380<"<"I(#.%26 R  U.S.v.Kirkland(9thCir.1980)637F.2d654<"<"I(#.723 v  U.S.v.Sager(2000)227F.3d1138<"<"I(#.,20   U.S.v._Tutino_(2ndCir.1989)883F.2d1125<"<"I(#.``623  Washingtonv.Texas(1967)388U.S.14<"<"I(#.014 2 Webbv.Lewis(9thCir.1994)44F.3d1387 p <"<"I(#.pp212 V Wigginsv.Smith,539U.S.510""J(#.hh(2 *z   STATECASES  `   AdoptionofMichaelD.(1989)209Cal.App.3d122<"<"I(#.:22   Andrewsv.CityandCountyofSanFrancisco(1988)205Cal.App.3d938<"<"I(#.O15 " Peoplev.Box(2000)23Cal.4th1153""J(#..8 $  Chambersv.State(Wyo.1986)726P.2d1269<"<"I(#.512 &B"  Cooperv.SuperiorCourt(1961)55Cal.2d291<"<"I(#.724 )f$" InreCordero(1988)46Cal.3d161!!G(#.,6,9 :+&$ ЇInreHall(1981)30Cal.3d408<"<"I(#.HH)22  Hallv.SuperiorCourt(2005)133Cal.App.4th908""J(#.;3 $ InreHamilton(1999)20Cal.4th273  <"<"I(#.(38 H Hubbardv.SuperiorCourt(1997)66Cal.App.4th1163<"<"I(#."">19  l InreLittlefield(1993)5Cal.4th122<"<"I(#...017 @  Martinv.State(Okla.1987)747P.2d316<"<"I(#...312 d  McDonaldv.SouthernPacificTransportationCo.(1999)71Cal.App.4th256<"<"I(#.(!(!S37   Peoplev.Anderson(1983)144Cal.App.3d55<"<"I(#.535  Peoplev.Atchison(1978)22Cal.3d181<"<"I(#.135   Peoplev.Ault(2004)33Cal.4th1250<"<"I(#./37 D Peoplev.Avila(1967)253Cal.App.2d308<"<"I(#.321 h Peoplev.Barton(1995)12Cal.4th186<"<"I(#.,,035 < Peoplev.Bell(2004)118Cal.App.4th249<"<"I(#.xx320 ` Peoplev.Bolton(1979)23Cal.3d208<"<"I(#./25   Peoplev.Bossert(1910)14Cal.App.111 E(#.221,22 " Peoplev.Brown(1980)110Cal.App.3d24""J(#.25 $  Peoplev.Brown(1981)116Cal.App.3d820<"<"I(#.,,310 &@"  Peoplev.Brown(1995)35Cal.App.4th1585<"<"I(#.nn415 )d$" Peoplev.Cabral(2004),121Cal.App.4th748<"<"I(#.719 8+&$ Peoplev.Clair(1992)2Cal.4th629<"<"I(#.  .15  Peoplev.Coddington(2000)23Cal.4th529<"<"I(#.432 6 Peoplev.DeLarco(1983)142Cal.App.3d294<"<"I(#.615  Z Peoplev._DeLeon_(1992)10Cal.App.4th815<"<"I(#.ll435 . ~ Peoplev.Edwards(1985)39Cal.3d107<"<"I(#.034 R  Peoplev.Elize(1999)71Cal.App.4th605<"<"I(#.\\334 v  Peoplev.Flannel(1979)25Cal.3d668<"<"I(#.,,034   Peoplev.Fleming(1913)166Cal.357<"<"I(#./27  Peoplev.Fosselman(1983)33Cal.3d572<"<"I(#.TT240 2 Peoplev.Gionis(1995)9Cal.4th1196<"<"I(#.  023 V Peoplev.Gonzales(1994)22Cal.App.4th1744<"<"I(#.ZZ718 *z Peoplev.Green(1980)27Cal.3d1<"<"I(#.,23 N Peoplev.Guizar(1986)180Cal.App.3d487 p  E(#.pp210,11 r Peoplev.Hamilton(1989)48Cal.3d1142""J(#.TT25 ! Peoplev.Hammond(1994)22Cal.App.4th1611<"<"I(#.617 #  Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800<"<"I(#..23 %.! Peoplev.Holloway(1990)50Cal.3d1098<"<"I(#.zz237 (R#! Peoplev.Izazaga(1991)54Cal.3d356<"<"I(#.66017 &*v%#  8+&$ Peoplev.Jackson(1991)235Cal.App.3d1670<"<"I(#.616  Peoplev.Jackson(1993)15Cal.App.4th1197 E(#.617,18 $ Peoplev.Karis(1988)46Cal.3d612  <"<"I(#.(16 H Peoplev.Kuykendall(1955)134Cal.App.2d642<"<"I(#.835  l Peoplev.Marquez(1992)1Cal.4th553<"<"I(#.xx022 @  Peoplev.Mattson(1990)50Cal.3d826<"<"I(#.nn016 d  People_v.Mayfield_(1972)23Cal.App.3d236<"<"I(#.XX416   Peoplev.Mendoza(2000)23Cal.4th896<"<"I(#.PP233  Peoplev.Montoya(Colo.1989)773P.2d623<"<"I(#.512   Peoplev.Moore(1954)43Cal.2d517<"<"I(#..34 D Peoplev.Morgan(1978)87Cal.App.3d59""J(#.25 h Peoplev.Morris(1991)53Cal.3d152""J(#./3 < Peoplev.Morrison(2004)34Cal.4th698""J(#.24 ` Peoplev.Murphy(1963)59Cal.2d818<"<"I(#.\\/15   Peoplev.Nesler(1997)16Cal.4th561<"<"I(#.037 " Peoplev.Nunn(1996)50Cal.App.4th1357<"<"I(#.332 $  Peoplev.Ochoa(1998)19Cal.4th353<"<"I(#./31 &@"  Peoplev._Ott_(1978)84Cal.App.3d118""J(#.14 )d$" Peoplev.Pride(1992)3Cal.4th195""J(#.&&.5 8+&$ Peoplev.Ramirez(1990)50Cal.3d1158<"<"I(#.134  Peoplev.Reeder(1978)82Cal.App.3d543<"<"I(#.314 6 Peoplev._Robarge_(1953)41Cal.2d628<"<"I(#.037  Z Peoplev.Rodriguez(1977)73Cal.App.3d1023<"<"I(#.722 . ~ Peoplev.Saam(1980)106Cal.App.3d789""J(#.26 R  Peoplev._Sahagun_(1979)89Cal.App.3d1""J(#.35 v  Peoplev.Samayoa(1997)15Cal.4th795||A(#.123,26,32   Peoplev.Sanders,75Cal.App.3d501<"<"I(#..10  Peoplev.Saucedo(2004)121Cal.App.4th937<"<"I(#.  619 2 Peoplev.Sedeno(1974)10Cal.3d703R!R!F(#./6,34 V Peoplev.Sergill(1982)138Cal.App.3d34<"<"I(#.410 *z Peoplev.Shaw(1984)35Cal.3d535<"<"I(#.rr-22 N Peoplev.Slocum(1975)52Cal.App.3d867<"<"I(#.327 r Peoplev.Smith(1998)64Cal.App.4th1458 p ""J(#.pp26 ! Peoplev.Stewart(1976)16Cal.3d133<"<"I(#.66034 #  Peoplev.Sundlee(1977)70Cal.App.3d477<"<"I(#...412 %.! Peoplev.Thompson(1988)45Cal.3d86<"<"I(#.023 (R#! Peoplev.Tillis(1998)18Cal.4th284<"<"I(#.019 &*v%#  8+&$ Peoplev.Torres(1995)33Cal.App.4th37<"<"I(#.hh310  Peoplev.Valladares(1984)162Cal.App.3d312<"<"I(#.822 $ Peoplev.Walton(1996)42Cal.App.4th1004<"<"I(#.518 H Peoplev.Wash(1993)6Cal.4th215 E(#.JJ-16,17  l Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258""J(#.08 @  Peoplev._Wickersham_(1982)32Cal.3d307 p <"<"I(#.pp235 d  Peoplev.Wilson(2005)36Cal.4th309<"<"I(#.RR025   Peoplev.Wilson(1967)66Cal.2d749<"<"I(#./34  Peoplev.Woodward(2004)116Cal.App.4th821<"<"I(#.736   Peoplev.Wright(1985)39Cal.3d576<"<"I(#./14 D Peoplev.Yu(1983)143Cal.App.3d358<"<"I(#.016 h Sandefferv.SuperiorCourt(1993)18Cal.App.4th672<"<"I(#.?18 < InreStankewitz(1985)40Cal.3d391<"<"I(#./37 ` Statev.Michaels(N.J.1993)264_N.J.Super_.579<"<"I(#.:12   Summagev.State(2004)248_Ga.App_.559<"<"I(#.112 " Taylorv.State(1986)727P.2d274<"<"I(#.-12 $  InreThomasF.(2003)113Cal.App.4th1249<"<"I(#.519 &@"  Townselv.SuperiorCourt(1999)20Cal.4th1084<"<"I(#.FF:37 )d$" Tullisv.State(Fla.1998)716So.2d819<"<"I(#.312 8+&$ Youngv.State(1994)645So.2d965  <"<"I(#12    STATESTATUTES  L   PenalCode25<"<"I(#.  @ 30 " r PenalCode28 E(#. 30,31 F  PenalCode1118.1""J(#.V V 6 j  Cal.Evid.Code210  <"<"I(#.13   Cal.Evid.Code351<"<"I(#. 14  Cal.Evid.Code403  <"<"I(#.28 & Cal.Evid.Code801<"<"I(#. 33 J Cal.Evid.Code129091<"<"I(#.#22 n CalRulesofCourt227.5""J(#. "3 B CalRulesofCourt2.1040(a)""J(#.^^&9 f Cal.Const.,art.I,section7<"<"I(#.(36     MISCELLANEOUS  "   CALJIC2.02<"<"I(#. 21 $$    %6!    `  ,{ԀMAKINGAWINNINGRECORD     `     h by     `  0  CharlesM.Sevilla((#(# { |# ' <##  #    Triallawyersarelikesurgeons.Appealslawyersarelikecoroners.For  P mosttriallawyers,thegoalistopersuadethejuryfirst,thecourtsecond(in  b motions,objections,instructions),andmakeanappellaterecordthird.The $ t purposeofthispaperistoprovidesuggestionstofurtherallthreegoals 6  simultaneouslysothatjurypersuasion   #    5}#    Ԁisnotsacrificedinthemakingofgoodtrial H  record.Recordpreservationneednotconflictwithjurypersuasion. Z    Recordmakingtakestime.Onehastothinkoutthestrategyofthecase ~  wellinadvanceoftrialinordertoknowwhatissuestoadvance.Sometimes,case   loadmayinterferewithone'sabilitytohavethetime.Insuchcases,the   discussionthatfollowsassumescounselhasthetime.SeeABAFormalOpinion  (06-441May13,2006), EthicalObligationsofLawyersWhoRepresentIndigent  CriminalDefendantsWhenExcessiveCaseloadsInterfereWithCompetentand ( DiligentRepresentation#   #   Ԁwhichstates: : 8  Alllawyers,includingpublicdefendersandotherlawyerswho,under ^ courtappointmentorgovernmentcontract,representindigentpersons  p chargedwithcriminaloffenses,mustprovidecompetentanddiligent 2 representation.Ifworkloadpreventsalawyerfromproviding D competentanddiligentrepresentationtoexistingclients,shemustnot V acceptnewclients.Iftheclientsarebeingassignedthroughacourt h appointmentsystem,thelawyershouldrequestthatthecourtnot z makeanynewappointments.Oncethelawyerisrepresentingaclient,   thelawyermustmovetowithdrawfromrepresentationifshecannot ! providecompetentanddiligentrepresentation.Ifthecourtdeniesthe " lawyersmotiontowithdraw,andanyavailablemeansofappealing # suchrulingisunsuccessful,thelawyermustcontinuewiththe $$  representationwhiletakingwhateverstepsarefeasibletoensurethat %6! shewillbeabletocompetentlyanddiligentlyrepresentthedefendant.&H"    #   #   #    L#    Ԁ  (Z#! #   #   #    B#Seealso  #   #ABAGuidelinesfortheAppointmentandPerformanceofCounselin )l$" DeathPenaltyCases    (2003) Guideline10.3: Counselrepresentingclientsindeath 4*%# penaltycasesshouldlimittheircaseloadstothelevelneededtoprovideeachclient L+&$ withhighqualitylegalrepresentationinaccordancewiththeseGuidelines. h 9#  1         [HereaftercitedasABAGuidelines].      Nowinningrecordcanbemadewhencounselwaivesissuesthrough 8 inaction.TheABAGuidelines,10.8A(3)(c)statesthateverypotentialclaimmust J beevaluatedinlightof: theimportanceofprotectingtheclient'srightsagainst  \ latercontentionsbythegovernmentthattheclaimhasbeenwaived,defaulted,not  n exhausted,orotherwiseforfeited.SubsectionB(1)requirescounselto present 0  theclaimasforcefullyaspossible,tailoringthepresentationtotheparticularfacts B  andcircumstancesintheclient'scaseandtheapplicablelawintheparticular T  jurisdiction;and2.Ensurethatafullrecordismadeofalllegalproceedingsin f  connectionwiththeclaim. x    TheABAGuidelinesdescribetherecordmakingdutyasa fundamental   dutyofcounsel.#   |#8  ABAGuidelines,Commentaryto10.8,TheDutytoAssertLegal  Claims.Hopefully,someofwhatfollowswillbehelpfulinmeetingthat  obligation. # 8 u#   Ԁ "       #   v#'    Whatfollowsisdividedintothreesections:generaltipsonrecordmaking; F suggestionsforrecordmakingoncommonissuesthatarise;andrecordmaking X throughuseofamotionfornewtrial. j  I.GENERALTIPSONRECORDMAKING. @ 'CA.TalktotheClient. SeeBeaversv.Balkcom(5thCir.1981)636F.2d114,116 h ( informedevaluationofpotentialdefensestocriminalchargesandmeaningful  discussionwithonesclientoftherealitiesofhiscaseare(the)cornerstonesof   (the)effectiveassistanceofcounsel[Citation.].)Thereisnosubstitutefor ! informationfromtheclientinpreparationfortrial,andthiswillinclude " informationrelevanttoavarietyofmotions.   B.KnowtheRealRules. nE.g.,CalRulesofCourt,Rule4.111,PretrialMotions & inCriminalCases,statesin(b)thatthecourtmayconsiderthefailurewithout > goodcauseofthemovingpartytoserveandfilepointsandauthoritieswithinthe  P timepermittedasanadmissionthatthemotioniswithoutmerit.Thisruledoes  b notaffectinliminemotions(whichareformsofevidentiaryobjections).Byits $ t terms,it'slimitedtopretrialmotions.  6  B.1.DealingwiththeCourtsIndividualizedRules. Trialjudgesliketohave \  theirownrulesfortheconductofcasesintheircourtrooms.Unlesstheserules t  merelyduplicatestatelaw(statutesorJudicialCouncilRules)orwereproperly   vettedunderthecontrollingstatestatueaslocalrules,theyarenotabasisforthe   impositionofanysanction.Ifconfrontedwithonethatcoulddamageyourcase,   tellthistothejudge: Iwasn'tawarethiswasamandatedrule.Hasitbeenput   throughtherequirementsofofCodeofCiv.Pro.575.1,Gov.Code68070,  68071,andRuleofCourt981?I'munawareofit.(SeeHallv.SuperiorCourt 0 (2005)133Cal.App.4th908[superiorcourtissuedarulethatstatedmotionshad B tobefiledandheardatleast30dayspriortotrial;heldinvalid].) T  C.FileaTrialBrief."Ԁ Raisingandpreservingissuescanbedifficultintheheatof *z battle,so counselshouldfilewrittenmotionsinliminepriortotrialraisingany B issuesthatcounselanticipatewillariseattrial.Allofthegroundsshouldbeset T outinthemotion.ABAGuidelines,Commentaryto10.8,TheDutytoAssert f LegalClaims.  x  Tosetforthyourlegaltheory,supportivecases,anticipateevidentiaryissues,and   toeducatethejudgeearlyonthesepoints.Tosetupamotioninliminethatsticks ! duringtrial,counselmustsetforthaspecificlegalgroundtoexcludeevidence,it " mustidentifyaparticularidentifiedbodyofevidence,andmustbemadeatatime #$ before(orduring)trialwhenthetrialjudgecandeterminethequestioninits $6  appropriatecontext.(Peoplev.Morris(1991)53Cal.3d152,190.) %H!  D.MaketheProsecutorSatisfyHis/herBurdenofEstablishingtheRelevance (l#! andFoundationforEvidence. ԀIfthetestimonyiscomprisedofhearsay,the 0)$" foundationalrequirementsforitsadmissibilityunderanexceptiontothehearsay H*%# rulearetheburdenoftheproponent.Evidenceisproperlyexcludedwhenthe Z+&$ proponentfailstomakeanadequateofferofproofregardingtherelevanceor  admissibilityoftheevidence.(Peoplev.Morrison(2004)34Cal.4th698,724.)   E.ReacttoSurpriseEvidencewithaMotiontoExclude,andFailingThat, 6 AskforaContinuance. (Peoplev._Ott_(1978)84Cal.App.3d118.)Thiscan J occurissubtleways.Forexample,assumeawitnessfortheprosecutionwhowas  b tosimplylayafoundationfordocumentssuddenlyisaskedquestionsonlyan $ t expertcanbeaskedandtheprosecutorhasnotprovidedanydiscoveryasrequired 6  bylaw.Movetoexcludeit.Failingthat:askforahearingonthediscovery H  you'vebeendeniedandtimetohireanexperttoassesstheinformationgiven. Z  InLekav.Portuondo(2dCir.2001)257F.3d89,106,thegovernmentsfailureto ~  disclosethenameofacrucialeyewitnesswithinformationfavorabletothe   defense untilthreebusinessdaysbeforetrialwasfoundtoviolatedueprocess.   Inlanguagecorrectlyacknowledgingtheimpossibilityofinvestigatingthecase  duringtrial,thecourtwrote:  8  Whensuchadisclosureisfirstmadeontheeveoftrial,orwhentrial : isunderway,theopportunitytouseitmaybeimpaired.Thedefense L maybeunabletodivertresourcesfromotherinitiativesand ^ obligationsthatareormayseemmorepressing.Andthedefensemay  p beunabletoassimilatetheinformationintoitscase.2   8  Moreover,newwitnessesordevelopmentstendtothrowexisting V strategiesandpreparationintodisarray.(Id.at101.)h   8  Forthesamereasons,adisclosuremadeontheeveoftrial(orafter   trialhasbegun)maybeinsufficientunlessitisfullerandmore ! thoroughthanmayhavebeenrequiredifthedisclosurehadbeen " madeatanearlierstage.(Id.at101.)#   AccordU.S.v.Gil,297F.3d93(2ndCir.2002)(reversingaconvictionforlast %6! minute,butbeforetrial,provisionofanimportantBradydocumentcontained &H"  withinthousandsofpagesofotherdiscovery.)  (Z#!  F.IfYouWantAlltheEvidenceIn,RememberEvidenceCode356.֬  .*~%# Itprovides,inpertinentpart:"Wherepartofanact,declaration,conversation,or B+&$ writingisgiveninevidencebyoneparty,thewholeonthesamesubjectmaybe  inquiredintobyanadverseparty...."Thecourtsarenottobenarrowlyfocused  whenconsideringtheapplicationof356:"InapplyingEvidenceCodesection $ 356thecourtsdonotdrawnarrowlinesaroundtheexactsubjectofinquiry.'In 6 theeventastatementadmittedinevidenceconstitutespartofaconversationor H correspondence,theopponentisentitledtohaveplacedinevidenceallthatwas  Z saidorwrittenbyortothedeclarantinthecourseofsuchconversationor  l correspondence,providedtheotherstatementshavesomebearingupon,or . ~ connectionwith,theadmissionordeclarationinevidence....'[Citations.]" @  (Peoplev.Hamilton(1989)48Cal.3d1142,1174.)% *  R   G.UseOffersofProoftoMakeaRecordofEvidencetheCourtExcludes . v  Thisisbestdonebydeclarationsofwitnesses,andmaybeevenrequired.(People   v._Sahagun_(1979)89_Cal.App_.3d1.)Fortheretobeprejudicefromthe   exclusionofdefenseevidence,therehastobesomethingintherecordtoshow  whatthewitness(orexcludedphysicalevidence)wouldprove. [A]nyclaimthat  evidencewaswronglyexcludedcannotberaisedonappealabsentanofferof & proofinthetrialcourt.(Evid.Code,354.)Defendantmadenoofferofproofas 8 tohowthetapesofhispoliceinterviewsmightcorrectanymissimpressions J allegedlycreatedbythetestimonyandtranscriptsactuallybeforethejury.  \ (Peoplev.Pride(1992)3Cal.4th195,235.) n  H. ӵ&Ԁ IfYouWanttoRelyonanObjectionofCocounselDuringtheTrial,Fine, B ButPutintheRecordThatYouAreDoingSo. (Peoplev.Brown(1980)110 Z Cal.App.3d24.) r  I.KnowWhento:Object,AskforanInstructionandMistrial.  ԀWherea   motionformistrialismadeinaplacewhereamotiontostrikeandaninstruction ! wouldcuretheharm,themotionwillbedenied.(Peoplev.Morgan(1978)87 " _Cal.App_.3d59.)  #"   J.GetRulingsandGetThemontheRecord .ԀNothingisappealableifthejudge %F! didnotrule.Forthosejudgeswhoarenonresponsivetomotionsorobjections, '^"  trytogetaruling,andfailingthat,say,"Itakeitthatisdenied."Ifthecourtrules  (p#! inanofftherecordchambersorsidebarmeeting,putitontherecordwhen 2)$" proceedingsresume.Ifrulingshavebeenmadepretrialonevidentiaryissues, D*%# makesuretohavethecourtstatethattheserulingsaredeemedtohavebeenmade V+&$ duringthetrialsothattheyneednotnecessitaterenewalattrial.  Also,ifyouobject,butthewitnessanswersbeforethejudgesustainsthe $ objection,youmustquicklymovetostriketheansweroritisinevidence.(People 6 v.Saam(1980)106Cal.App.3d789,795.) H  K.AlwaysMakePenalCode1118.1MotionsattheEndoftheDAscasein  l Chief.Ԁ APC1118.1motionneednotspecifythechargetowhichitappliesor 0  theelementastowhichproofisinsufficient.(Peoplev.Smith(1998)64Cal. H  App.4th1458,1468.)Accordingly,"unlessthedefendanthasaverygoodreason Z  nottodoso,thecloseoftheprosecution'scaseshouldalwaysbefollowedbya l  nonspecificsection1118.1motiondirectedatallthecountsandenhancements." ~  (Ibid.)    L.DontEndorsetheCourtsGeneralInstructions. Sometrialjudgeswill  seekanontherecordgeneralendorsementofalltheinstructionsafterthe  instructionconference.Dontdoit.Instructionsarethejudgesresponsibility.Just . say, submitted.Byendorsingtheinstructionalpackage,counselrisks @ underminingargumentsthatappellatecounselfindsonappeal.TheStatewill R arguetheinstructionalerrorwasinvitedbecausedefensecounselstatedonthe d recordthatthedefensewantedtheinstructions.Thisdoesnotmeanthatcounsel &v shouldbesilentintheinstructionalconference,asisdiscussednext. 8  M.DontBuyIntoCALCRIMUnlessYouareConvincedItisCorrect.  \ ThereareerrorsinCALCRIM.CounselshouldconsultFORECITEonallthe p instructionstodevelopobjectionsandalternativeinstructions.Therearetailored  defenseinstructionstobedevelopedandoffered.Trialcounselhasadutyto   requestproperjuryinstructions.(SeePeoplev.Sedeno(1974)10Cal.3d703,717, ! n,7,overruledonothergroundsinPeoplev.Breverman(1998)19Cal.4th142; " seealsoInreCordero(1988)46Cal.3d161,18991[J.Mosk,conc.];U.S.v. # Span(9thCir.1996)75F.3d1383[failuretorequestinstructiononavailable $,  defensewasIAC].) %>! Ѐ 'P"   N.DontLetACourtIntimidateYouByChidingthatYourArgumentis (b#! FrivolousBecauseEveryCourtThatHasConsideredit,HasRejectedit.  &)v$" Heresastoryofwhytrialcourtsshouldjustruleonmotionsandnotcriticize :*%# counselforraisinganissuethateverycourtinthelandhasrejectedexceptthe L+&$ U.S.SupremeCourt.InBousleyv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.614,the  defendantpleadedguiltytodrugpossessionwithintenttodistributeandtothe  enhancementfor"using"afirearm"duringandinrelationtoadrugtrafficking $ crime."Heappealedhissentence,butdidnotchallengetheguiltyplea'svalidity. 6 TheEighthCircuitaffirmed.Subsequently,hesoughthabeasrelief,claiminghis H guiltyplealackedafactualbasisbecauseneitherthe"evidence"northe"plea  Z allocation"showedaconnectionbetweenthefirearmsinthebedroomofthehouse  l andthegaragewherethedrugtraffickingoccurred.TheDistrictCourtdismissed . ~ thepetition.Whiletheappealwaspending,theSupremeCourtheldthata @  convictionforusingafirearmrequirestheGovernmenttoshow"active R  employmentofthefirearm,"Baileyv.UnitedStates(1995)516U.S.137,144,not d  merepossession.InaffirmingthedismissalinBousley,theEighthCircuitrejected v  petitioner'sargumentthatBaileyshouldbeappliedretroactively,thathisguilty   pleawasnotknowingandintelligentbecausehewasmisinformedaboutthe   elementsofthegunoffense,thatthisclaimwasnotwaivedbyhisguiltyplea,and  thathisconvictionshouldthereforebevacated.    TheSupremeCourttookthecase.ItheldthatBousleywaivedhisclaimby 2 notraisingitondirectappeal(andthusbutnotarguingitattrialtoo).Toarguehis D wayaroundthisdefault,Bousleyclaimed"causeandactualprejudice."Heargued V thatthelegalbasisforhisclaimwasnotreasonablyavailabletocounselatthe h timeofhispleaandthatitwouldhavebeenfutiletoattackthepleabeforeBailey; *z TheSupremeCourtheldthatwhilethismayworkwhentheclaim"issonovelthat < itslegalbasisisnotreasonablyavailabletocounsel"(Reedv.Ross(1984)468 N U.S.1,16),_Bousley_sclaimdoesnotqualifybecausehisclaimwasheldnot `  novelbecausealthoughneveracceptedbyanycourtuntilBailey(andthismeans r rejectedbyeveryappealscourtinthecountry),theissuewasbeingraised.   QuotingEnglev.Isaac(1982)456U.S.107,theCourtheldthat"futilitycannot ! constitutecauseifitmeanssimplythataclaimwas'unacceptabletothatparticular " courtatthatparticulartime.'"(Id.,at130,n.35.)Therefore,petitionerisunableto #  establishcauseforhisdefault. $    Thelongandshortofthisis:ifanylawyerinthenationhasthoughtofan &@"  arguableissueandpressedit,itisnot novelandshouldbeurgedinthecourts (R#! timeandagainuntiltheU.S.SupremeCourteitherrejectsoracceptsit.Ifnotso )d$" pressed,theclientwilldefaultitonhabeasreview.So,asinBailey , despiteno &*v%# courteverrecognizingtheissueasvaliduntilthehighcourtdidsoafterrepeated >+&$ andunanimousrejectionsinallthecourtsofappeal,trialcounselshouldhave  raiseditanyway.Bynotdoingso,theclientdefaultedwhatwasawinningissue.  Sowhenajudgecriticizesyouforraisinganoftrejectedissue,tellthejudgethis $ storyandpresson.  6 O.FederalizeEveryObjectionandMotion.6Ԁ &Ԁ  \   Ihavebeengivingoutmy mantramotion,apretrialmotionforevery $ t criminalcasegoingtotrial.Itcontainsseveralmotionsusefulineverycase, 6  capitalornoncapital,includingshortmotionstostoptheprosecutorfrom H  referringtothecomplainingwitnessasa victim,tostoptheprosecutorfrom Z  referringtohimorherselfasrepresentingthe People,anargumenttohavethe l  words evidentiarycertaintyputintothereasonabledoubtinstruction,andan ~  argumentto federalizeeveryobjectionmadeinthetrialcourtsothatcounsel   doesnothavetoarticulatefortherecordanexplicitfederalconstitutionalbasisfor   anobjection.Themotioncanbedownloadedfrommywebsiteatwww.  charlessevilla.com(gotothepublicationspage).SeealsoGail_Weinheimer_s  federalizationtableinthe2006Montereymaterials. (     ` II.RECORDMAKINGONSPECIFICISSUES  L  A.MakingaRecordofBatsonv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79Challenges.= 2 9#  2       "r "[O]ncetheopponentofaperemptorychallengehasmadeoutaprimafaciecase H ofracialdiscrimination( stepone ),theburdenofproductionshiftstothe Z proponentofthestriketocomeforwardwitharaceneutralexplanation( step r two ).Ifaraceneutralexplanationistendered,thetrialcourtmustthendecide  ( stepthree )whethertheopponentofthestrikehasprovedpurposefulracial   discrimination."(Purkettv.Elem(1995)514U.S.765,767.) !  1.StepOne󀄀DefenseBurdenassoonasyourecognizeapotentialBatson #. problem,makea_Batson_ԄWheelermotionstatingwhatitisthatonemaybasean $@  inferenceofintentionaldiscriminationbasedonraceorgender.Peoplev. &R! Buchanan(2006)143Cal.App.4th139,141:"Itshouldsurprisenoonethat,asa 'd"  reviewingcourt,weareonlyabletoconsidermattersadequatelyraisedinthe  record."Otherthanthelistofnamessuggestingthechallengedjurorswere  Hispanic,therewasnothinginthisrecordregardingethnicityofpotential, $ challenged,orseatedjurors.Here,numerouspersonswithsimilarnamesremained 6 onthepanel.Inshort,therecordwasnotgoodenoughtopreservetheissue. H    2.StepTwo󀄀Prosecutor'sBurdentolist"raceneutral"reasonsforthechallenge.  l Listencarefullyandbereadytocomparetheobjectionswiththoseused(ornot . ~ used)onsimilarlysituatednonminorityjurors.Also,questionwhetherthe @  reasonisamakeweightrationalizationforwhatreallyisgoingon.(SeeKesserv. R  Cambra(9thCir.2006)465F.3d351[DAkickedoffNativeAmericanandAsian d  jurors.The9thCircuitreversesunderBatsonfinding,bycomparativeanalysisthe v  DAsexplanationsdidnotholdwater].)     3.StepThree󀄀Courtsburdentodeterminethecredibilityoftheprosecutor's  reason.Bestdefenseargumentwillbethattherecordcontradictsordoesnot  supporttheprosecutor.MillerElv.Dretke(2004)545U.S.231appearstorequire   comparativeanalysisforBatsonchallengesonappeal.Thejudgemustdetermine 2 thecredibilityoftheprosecutor'sprofferedexplanation.(McClainv.Prunty(9th D Cir.2000)217F.3d1209,1220,citedwithapprovalinPeoplev.Silva(2001)25 V Cal.4th345,385.) h  B.DealingwithVideoandAudioTapeProsecutionEvidence  <    1. GetaTranscriptWellBeforeTrial.Iftheprosecutionwantstoplaysuch b atapetothejury,makesuretheyprovideyouwithanaccuratetranscriptwellin z advanceandfileitintherecord.SeeCalif.RulesofCourt,Rule2.1040(a),   requiringsuchatranscriptbeforeelectronicrecordingsmaybeadmitted. !   2. ChecktheTranscriptAgainsttheTapeandFlagAlltheObjectionable # Material.(InreCordero(1988)46Cal.3d161,188[tapeofdefendants $*  interrogationincludedanofficersstatementthatthejudgewhosignsthearrest %*%# otherpossibleobjections,itisinconceivabletousthatdefensecounseldidnot P+&$ objecttotheintroductionofthisportionofthetapeandtranscriptsontheground  thatitwasmoreprejudicialthanprobative"].)SeealsoSagerv.Maass(9thCir.  1996)84F.3d1212,affirming907F.Supp.1412(D.Or.1995)[defensecounsel $ washeldineffectiveinpartforfailingtoobjecttoa911tapewhichcontained 6 negativecommentsaboutthedefendant];Peoplev.Sundlee(1977)70Cal.App.3d H 477[counselsfailuretoobjecttopolicesurveillancetapecontaininginadmissible  Z hearsayheldineffectiveassistance].)  l   7. ObjecttotheTapeorTranscriptGoingtotheJuryinDeliberationsif @  someoralloftheoffendingquestionsareadmittedbecauseoftheriskthatthe X  commentswillbegivenundueemphasis.(SeePeoplev.Sundlee,supraat485 j  [ Eachjurorhadatranscriptoftheinadmissibleradioconversationsandtookit |  intothejuryroom,whereitmayhaveplayedapowerfulandinfluentialrole,   dwarfingtheadmissibleeyewitnesstestimony];U.S.v.Hernandez(9thCir.   1994)27F.3d1403,1408[errorprejudicialtogivejurorstranscriptofwitness  testimonywherefewprecautionsaretakentoinsurejurydoesnotgivethe  transcriptunduesignificance].) &   8. AlloftheAboveApplytoVideoInterviewEvidence.Often,inchild J abusecases,thechildisinterviewedandtheprosecutionseekstoplaythetape b beforethejury.Unlessthereisanevidentiaryexceptiontothehearsayrule,it $t shouldnotcomein.Asocialworkerinterviewissubjecttoapretrialmotionto 6 excludebecauseitispurehearsayandoftencontainscontaminantssuchas H multiplehearsayandprejudicialcommentsbythesocialworker,e.g., Wewill Z makesurehedoesn'thurtanyoneelse.(SeeWebbv.Lewis(9thCir.1994)44 l F.3d1387[admissionofvideotapedviolatedConfrontationClausewherethetape ~ didnotfallwithinanyrecognizedexceptiontothehearsayrule].)     Evenifsomepartsareadmitted,andunlesstacticsdictateotherwise,never " letthevideotapegobacktothejuryroomduringdeliberations.Thisislikehaving # theaccuserappear liveduringdeliberationsinthemostcredibilitysupportive $(  context.(Seethefollowingcasessupportiveofexclusionofsuchtapesinthejury %:! roomduringjurydeliberations:U.S.v.Binder(9thCir.1985)769F.2d595,600 &L"  601,overruledonothergroundsbyU.S.v.Morales(9thCir.1997)108F.3d (^#! 1031,1035,fn.1.;Chambersv.State(Wyo.1986)726P.2d1269,1276,1277;  )p$" Taylorv.State(1986)727P.2d274,277;  Martinv.State(Okla.1987)747P.2d 2*%# 316,31920;Peoplev.Montoya(Colo.1989)773P.2d623,626,supercededon J+&$ othergroundsasstatedinPeoplev.Pahlavan(2003)83P.3d1138;  Statev.  Michaels(N.J.1993)264N.J.Super.579,643644;Summagev.State(2004)248  Ga.App.559,561;Tullisv.State(Fla.1998)716So.2d819,820;Youngv.State * (1994)645So.2d965,968.) <   9. TaleoftheTapes.Tapescanbedamagingevidencebuttheyoften  ` containmaterialthatajuryshouldneverhear.Beingattentivetotherecordmeans ( x beingvigilanttocontaintapedevidence."Animportantelementofafairtrialis :  thatajuryconsideronlyrelevantandcompetentevidencebearingontheissuesof L  guiltorinnocence."(Brutonv.U.S.(1968)391U.S.123,131,fn.6.)Withthe ^  aboveinmind,theabovechecklistcanbeusedtoguaranteeclientstheirrightto p  betrieduponrelevantevidenceandnotopinionssmuggledintothetrialthrough   tapedevidence.    C.MakingaRecordwithEvidentiaryObjections : Overcoming352toGet  YourEvidenceAdmitted=.    Nostatuteiscitedmorefrequentlyinthecriminalcourtstoexcludedefense F evidencethanEvidenceCodesection352.Itreads: X 8  Thecourtinitsdiscretionmayexcludeevidenceifitsprobativevalue ,| issubstantiallyoutweighedbytheprobabilitythatitsadmissionwill > (a)necessitateundueconsumptionoftimeor(b)createsubstantial P dangerofundueprejudice,ofconfusingtheissues,orofmisleading b thejury.t     Excludingdefenseevidenceisaseriousmatterandjudgesneedtobe   impressedwiththelawstatingthat352cannotbeblithelyemployedtobar ! relevantevidence.Judgestoooftenexercisediscretiontoutter 352"asifitwere "  themagic abracadabratomakeevidencevanish.Whenfacedwiththisreaction, # breakdowntheelementsof352andofferlegalargumentstoovercomeit.Even $0  ifyoumaketheargumentanditfails,youhavedonetheclientaserviceby %B! makingarecordforappeal.Butletsthinkpositively.Theseargumentswill 'T"  prevail. (f#!   1.ProbativeValue . Thefirstrequirementisthatyourprofferedevidence :*%# haveprobativevalue;thatis,isitrelevanttosomeissueinthecase?Weneed R+&$ rulesofrelevancebecause,asOliverWendellHolmessaid,theyare thenecessary  concessiontotheshortnessoflife.Butwhatisrelevant?AsdefinedbyCal.  Evid.Code210: $ 8  "Relevantevidence"meanse_vidence_,includingevidencerelevantto H thecredibilityofawitnessorhearsaydeclarant,havinganytendency  Z inreasontoproveordisproveanydisputedfactthatisof  l consequencetothedeterminationoftheaction.. ~   Giventhebreadthofthe anytendencyinreasonlanguage,youshouldhaveno R  difficultyshowingyourevidenceisrelevant. d    2.TheConstitutionalImperative.Oncetherelevancyhurdleismet,your   evidencenowisentitledtoanescortintocourtinthestrongarmsofstatutoryand   constitutionalmandates.Withcertainexceptions, allrelevantevidenceis  admissible,statesart.I,28(d)oftheCaliforniaConstitution.Cal.Evid.Code  351saysthesame.Further,thedefensehasafederalconstitutionalrightto   compulsoryprocessandtoputonadefensecase.(Washingtonv.Texas(1967) 2 388U.S.14;Holmesv.SouthCarolina(2006)126S.Ct.1727. D   Theseprotectionsmaybeviolatedwhenrelevantdefenseevidenceis h excluded.Remindthecourt: [E]videnceCodesection352mustbowtothedue *z processrightofadefendanttoafairtrialandtohisrighttopresentallrelevant < evidenceofsignificantprobativevaluetohisdefense.(Peoplev.Reeder(1978) N 82Cal.App.3d543,553;seealsoFowlerv.SacramentoCountySheriffs ` Department(9thCir.2005)421F.3d1027[grantingfederalhabeasformisuseof r 352todenyingconfrontationevidenceagainstcomplainingwitness].)     3.JudicialMandate.Finally,ifthisweren'tenoughtogetyourrelevant " evidenceadmitted,urgethecourttoreadthispassagefromPeoplev.Wright #  (1985)39Cal.3d576,584585: $  8  Wefirstreiterate,fromaunanimousopinionofthiscourt,the"[wise] &@"  advicefortrialjudgesincriminalcases(andforprosecuting (R#! attorneys)[that]wasarticulatedlongago:'Questionsastothe )d$" admissibilityofevidencefrequentlyarise,andinthehurryofa... &*v%# trialthebestJudgemayerr....[Whenever]theevidenceproposedby 8+&$ thedefenseisnotplainlyinadmissible,itisbettertoletitgoin,since,  inninecasesoutoften,asingleequivocalfact,ofdoubtfulbearing  uponthecase,wouldhavenoeffectuponthejudgmentofthejurors, $ whoareusuallydisposedtopass...uponthegeneralmerits....'In 6 otherwords,trialjudgesincriminalcasesshouldgiveadefendantthe H benefitofanyreasonabledoubtwhenpassingontheadmissibilityof  Z evidenceaswellasindeterminingitsweight."(Peoplev.Murphy  l (1963)59Cal.2d818,829[31Cal.Rptr.306,382P.2d346].). ~     Insum,thetrialcourt'sexerciseofdiscretionunderSection352"should R  favorthedefendantincasesofdoubt."(Peoplev.DeLarco  (1983)142Cal.App. d  3d294,306).    |    4.Substantiallyoutweighed.  Assumingthecourtisdeterminedtoengage   intheweighingprocessandconsiderexclusion,thecourtmustmakeafinding  supportedbytherecord(Peoplev.Clair(1992)2Cal.4th629,660)thatthevalue  oftheevidenceis substantiallyoutweighedbythe aand bfactorsdiscussed , next.Itishelpfultomakeyourargumentontherecordtoencouragethecourtto > gothrougha352reasoningprocess.Oneoftheweighingfactorsistheconceptof P  substantial.Inbaseball,iftheGiantsbeattheDodgersby14runs,theyhave b wonbya substantialmargin.Iftheywinbyoneortworuns,thatsnot $t substantial.Onlyalopsidedoutweighingwarrantsexclusion.Anythingclose 6 goestothedefendant. H   Nowlet'sconsiderthe352factorsthatmustsubstantiallyoutweighthe l relevanceoftheevidencetowarrantexclusion. ~   5.Necessitatesundueconsumptionoftime.󀀀Theproductionofallevidence ! takestime,sothefocushastobean undueconsumptionoftime.Forexample, " inAndrewsv.CityandCountyofSanFrancisco(1988)205Cal.App.3d938,the # trialjudgewasreversedfordisallowingpriorbadactsevidenceofalaw $(  enforcementofficerinasuitbyaprisonerconcerninghismishandlingwhilein %:! custody.Thetrialjudgewouldnotallowtheotheractsofmisconducttobe &L"  introducedbecauseitwouldrequiretimeconsuming minitrialsonthoseissues. (^#! Reversed: thefactthatthejurymustresolveconflictingversionscannotjustify  )p$" theexclusionofallsuchevidenceonthis[352]groundalone.(Id.at947.) 2*%#  D+&$   CumulativeEvidence.Thisisacommonargumenttoexcludeevidence  under352fortakingtoomuchtime.Butthereisareasonforputtingon  cumulativeevidence.Evidencethatcorroboratesisnecessarytomakemore $ credibletheissueandthuscan'tbeexcludedasmerelycumulative.( Peoplev. 6 Brown(1995)35Cal.App.4th1585,15951597.)Additionalevidencemaybeof H moreprobativevaluethanpreviousversions."Evidencethatisidenticalinsubject  Z mattertootherevidenceshouldnotbeexcludedas'cumulative'whenithasgreater  l evidentiaryweightorprobativevalue.[Citation.]"(Peoplev.Mattson(1990)50 . ~ Cal.3d826,871.) @  ̀    6.Createssubstantialdangerofundueprejudice.  Thebestevidenceis d  always prejudicialtotheotherside.SeePeoplev.Jackson(1991)235Cal.App. |  3d1670,1679(theevidence wasprejudicialonlyinthesensethatitcastdoubt   ontheprosecution'scaseagainstdefendant.)Prejudicedoesnotmeandamaging.   Itmeansthattheevidencehasverylittlerelevanceandagreatpotentialfor  unfairlyprejudicingtheotherside. The'prejudice'referredtoinEvidenceCode  section352appliestoevidencewhichuniquelytendstoevokeanemotionalbias & againstthedefendantasanindividualandwhichhasverylittleeffectonthe 8 issues.(Peoplev.Karis(1988)46Cal.3d612,638;Peoplev.Yu(1983)143 J _Cal.App_.3d358,377.)  \   Towarrantexclusiononthisground,theweighingprocessrequiresa 0 findingoflopsidednesssuchthatrelevanceisminimalanduniqueprejudicetothe B Stateismaximal. T    7.Confusingtheissues,orofmisleadingthejury.Itisdifficulttoconceive x ofrelevantevidencethatisminimallyrelevantwhilebeingsopotentitwould   substantiallyconfusetheissuesormisleadajury.SeePeoplevMayfield(1972) ! 23CalApp3d236(reversingforexclusionoftestimonybyasuperiorofficer " concerningthecredibilityofadeceasedundercovercoponthisbasis;heldan # abuseofdiscretionthatresultedinadenialofdueprocess.)Instructionstothe $"  jurycouldrectifythepotentialforconfusion. %4!   Usetheaboveasaidsinfightingfortheadmissionofyourevidenceand (X#! makeeveryefforttohavethecourtmakeitsanalysisontherecord.Onamotion )j$" invokingsection352therecordmustaffirmativelyshowthatthetrialjudgedidin ,*|%# factweighprejudiceagainstprobativevalue.Thismaybedonebyimplication, >+&$ butgiventhismandate,counselcanurgethatitbedoneontherecord.  (Peoplev.Wash(1993)6Cal.4th215,246.) p    HD.Fighting1054toGetYourImpeachmentorLateComingEvidenceIn. 8 Hz LI  Atroublingissuefortrialcounselunderdiscoverylawisthis:whendoes  ` counselknowor reasonablyanticipatecallingawitnesstotrialsoastobe " r requiredtoturnoverthenametotheothersidethirtydaysbeforetrial? 4    Under1054(a),theprosecutionmustgivethedefense: Thenamesand X  addressesofpersonstheprosecutorintendstocallaswitnessesattrial.This j  includes, [r]elevantwrittenorrecordedstatementsofwitnessesorreportsofthe |  statementsofwitnesses.(Id . at(f).)1054.3(a)putsasimilarrequirementonthe   defense.(InreLittlefield(1993)5Cal.4th122,129(namesandaddresses   requiredtobeprovided.)Failuretoabidebythestatutemayleadtosanctions  including immediatedisclosure,contemptproceedings,delayingorprohibiting  thetestimonyofawitnessorthepresentationofrealevidence,continuanceofthe , matter.Exclusionisnottobeorderedunlessallelsehasbeentried.(1054.5_(c_).) >   Intheabstract,therequirementseemsclear,butbothsides,andespecially b thedefense,facedifficultiesin knowingwhenoneisgoingtocallawitness. $t Becausetheprosecutionhastoputonacase,itknowsthenamesofneeded 6 witnesses.Butthedefenseneednotcallwitnesses.Whethertodosomaydepend H onthestrengthoftheprosecutiontestimony.With readerpreliminaryhearings, Z itissometimesdifficulttoassessthestrengthoftheprosecutioncase,andthus l somewitnessdecisionsmustawaittrial.Butwaitingrunstheriskofsanctions. ~   Thestatutorytriggertoadiscoveryturnoverthirtydayspriortotrialis ! whenone"intendstocall"thewitness.InPeoplev.Izazaga  (1991) 54Cal.3d356, " 376,n.11,thecourtdescribedthisas"including'allwitnesses...[theparty] # reasonablyanticipatesitislikelytocall....'"(adoptingastandardfromanOhio $.  case).IzazagaalsomadeitclearthattheDAmustgivetimelydiscoveryofits %@! witnessesregardlessofwhethertheyarecaseinchieforrebuttalwitnesses. 'R"  (Peoplev.Hammond(1994)22Cal.App.4th1611,1621.) (d#!   Asthefollowingcasesshow, intendstocallcanbeadifficultstandard. 8*%# Howdoesoneprovetoadoubtingjudgethatonedidnotintendtocallthe J+&$ witnessesuntilsomethingattrialoccurredwarrantingachangeindirection?  ConsiderPeoplev.Jackson (1993)15_Cal.App_.4th1197,wheretheCourtof  Appealapprovedtheexclusionofdefensetestimonyasasanctionfordiscovery * noncompliancebecause"the...[trial]judgerefusedtobelievedefensecounseldid < notseriouslyconsidercallingthewitnessuntilmomentsbeforehedid." ( Id . at N 1203.)  f   InSandefferv.SuperiorCourt(1993)18_Cal.App_.4th672,678,theCourt :  ofAppealacknowledgedthedifficultiesintrialcounselmakingabsolute L  determinationsthirtydayspriortotrialaboutthewitnessestobecalled:"Even ^  whencounselappearstothecourttobeunreasonablydelayingthepublicationof p  hisdecisiontocallawitness,itcannotbewithintheprovinceofthetrialjudgeto   stepintohisshoes....[T]hecourt...islimitedtotheremediesprovidedintheact   forsuchstonewalling."Thiswasacaseinvolvingtheissueofwhetherdisclosure   ofadefenseexpertwitness'sreportswasrequiredbeforethedefensedecided  whethertocalltheexpert.Answer:no.    InPeoplev.Walton(1996)42_Cal.App_.4th1004,theprosecution > discoveredaneweyewitnessduringjuryselectionandpromptlyturnedoverthe P statementtothedefense.Nocontinuancewasrequestedandthetrialcourtrefused b tobarthewitnessfromtestifying.Theappellatecourtheldnoabuseofdiscretion $t because: 6 8  untiltheprosecutorwasabletolocatethewitnessshecouldnot Z "intendtocall"himasawitness.(1054.1.)Onceshedidlocatehim l shepromptlyfulfilledherdisclosureduty.Moreover,appellantwas ~ providedwiththewitness'sstatementandwasaffordedan   opportunitytointerviewthewitnessbeforehetestified.Ifappellant ! requiredadditionaltimetoprepareforthewitness'stestimonyhe " neglectedtorequestit.(Id . at1017.)#     InPeoplev.Hammond,supra,thecourtheldthatthebelatedturnoverby %@! theDAofarebuttalwitnesssnameandaddresswasjustifiedbythefailureofthe 'R"  defensetotimelyprovidethenameandaddressofthedefensewitnesswhomthe (d#! rebuttalwitnessimpeached. &)v$"   InPeoplev.Gonzales(1994)22Cal.App.4th1744,thecourtreverseda J+&$ convictionfortheexclusionofaproffereddefendantscellmatewhowasonly  revealedtotheDAduringtrial.Inreversing,thecourtruledthatifexclusionisto  bebasedonprejudicetotheotherside, weconcludethattheprejudicewould $ necessarilyhavetobesubstantialandirremediable,whileifpunishmentisthe 6 basisforthesanction,then absentashowingofsignificantprejudiceandwillful H conduct,exclusionoftestimonyisnotappropriateaspunishment.Underthe  Z factsofthecase,thecourtofappealfoundneitherjustificationtoexisttoexclude  l thewitnessandreversedtheconviction. . ~   InreThomasF.(2003)113Cal.App.4th1249,thetrialcourtbarredfour R  defensewitnessesfromtestifyingbecausecounselprovidedthenamesonthe d  seconddayofthejurisdictionalhearing.Onlythelackofanexpressorderfor v  reciprocaldiscoverybythejuvenilecourtsavedthedayheretobringabouta   reversalbecause1054'sprovisionsdonotautomaticallyapplytoadelinquency   proceeding.Aspecificdiscoveryorderisrequiredinjuvenilecasesandnonewas  enteredhere.    Rememberthatthesediscoveryrulesdonotapplytowitnessimpeachment 2 evidence.SeeIzazaga,supra,atfn.14:"thedefenseisnotrequiredtodiscloseany D statementsitobtainsfromprosecutionwitnessesthatitmayusetorefutethe V prosecution'scaseduringcrossexamination.Werethisotherwise,wewouldbe h presentedwithasignificantissueofreciprocity."(SeePeoplev.Tillis(1998)18 *z Cal.4th284(prosecutordidnotviolatediscoverystatutebyfailingtodisclose < impeachmentevidenceitpossessedofadefenseexpert);Hubbardv.Superior N Court(1997)66Cal.App.4th1163(sameruleforthedefense).) `   Forthedefense,GonzalesandWaltonaregoodcasestohaveatthereadyif   theDAarguesthatthedefenseislateingivingitthenamesandaddressesof ! defensewitnesses.Asappropriate,argueperWaltonthatonecannotturnoverthe " nameofawitnessonehasnotfoundandinterviewed.Or,argueperGonzales #  therewasnowillfulviolationand/ornoirremediableprejudicetothestate. $  Finally,ifallelsefails,thestatutehasahierarchyofsanctions(listedabove)and %.! thenonexclusionarysanctionsaretobeexhaustedbeforeexclusioncanbe &@"  applied. (R#!   Ifthecourtfindstheevidenceshouldhavebeenturnedoverearlier,the &*v%# sanctionshouldbeashortcontinuancefortheothersideandnotexclusion.The 8+&$ courtcannotinstructthejurytofindthatcounselslateturnovershouldbe  attributedtothedefendanttosupportnegativeinferencesabouttheevidence.(See  Peoplev.Saucedo(2004)121Cal.App.4th937,943;Peoplev.Cabral(2004) $ 121Cal.App.4th748,753;Peoplev.Bell(2004)118Cal.App.4th249,257.) 6  E.FightingtoMakeaRecordoftheStatesInvestigativeMisconduct ~o  Z Ѐ  Inasignificantnumberofcaseswedefend,wecomeacrossunethicaland/or 0  grosslynegligentpoliceorprosecutioninvestigationltinfouledorlostevidence. B  BecauseofArizonav.Youngblood  (1988)488U.S.51,itisalmostimpossibleto T  getacourtsanctionofsuppressionordismissal.However,Kylesv.Whitely  l   (1995)514U.S.419,permitsaninstructionalsanctionwhichmayprovidea ~  formidabletoolinfinalargument.Kyles,atp.446n.15,states:"when...the   probativeforceofevidencedependsonthecircumstancesinwhichitwasobtained   andthosecircumstancesraiseapossibilityoffraud,indicationsofconscientious  policeworkwillenhanceprobativeforceandslovenlyworkwilldiminishit."    Herearetherecordmakingstepstobetakentoallowyoutoarguethatthe : jurymusttheStatesevidencetohavenoinculpatoryvalue,and,infact,thejury L mustfinditexculpatory.Byshowingincrossexaminationofthepolicethatthey ^ weresloppy,negligentoractedinbadfaith,youwillbeentitledtoinstruction  p tellingthejurythatifitfindstheinvestigationassuch,theymayusethatfact 2 alonetodisregardevidencesoproduced. D   InU.S.v.Sager(2000)227F.3d1138,1145,thecourtsaid,relyingon h Kyles: WeagreewithSagerthatthedistrictcourtcommittedplainerrorand z abuseditsdiscretionbyinstructingthejurynotto"grade"theinvestigation.Inone   breath,thecourtmadeclearthatthejurywastodecidequestionsoffact,butinthe ! other,thecourtmuddledtheissuebyinformingthejurythatitcouldnotconsider " possibledefectsinMorris'sinvestigation.Totellthejurythatitmayassessthe # productofaninvestigation,butthatitmaynotanalyzethequalityofthe $$  investigationthatproducedtheproduct,illogicallyremovesfromthejury %6! potentiallyrelevantinformation. &H"    Asampleinstructiontoprofferwhenthereisevidenceofasloppyorbad )l$" faithinvestigation: .*~%#  @+&$    ` DEFENDANTSPROPOSEDINSTRUCTION0   (# (# 8  Thedefensehaspresentedevidencethattheprosecutions $ investigationofthiscasehasbeennegligent,orpurposefully 6 distorted,andnotdoneingoodfaith.Forexample,therehasbeen H testimonyabout[listtheproblemsdevelopedinthetestimony  Z concerningcertainevidence].Withrespecttotheseitemsofevidence,  l theprobativevalueofthatevidencedependsonthecircumstancesin . ~ whichitwas[orwasnot]obtained[tested][maintained].Ifthe @  circumstancesraiseareasonablebeliefofbadfaith,fraudor R  negligence,youmayconsiderthatindeterminingthecredibilityof d  thewitnessesandtheweight,ifany,thatyouchosetogivethat v  evidence.    8  Remember,undertheinstructionsIhavegivenyou,iftheevidence  permitstworeasonableinterpretations,youmustadoptthat  interpretationwhichfavorsthedefendant.      Then,infinalargumentcounselcanarguetothejurythatwithrespectto D anyevidencerelatedtothesloppy,negligentorbadfaithinvestigation,thejury V MUSTmakeinferenceswhichfavorthedefenseversion.ThisisbecauseKyles h andSagersayyouareentitledtosuchaninstructionpermittingtheinferences,and *z CALJIC2.02saysthatifinferencesaboutafactpointintwoequallyreasonable < directions,thejuryMUSTfindforthedefense. N  F.FightingtoMakeARecordWhenYourWitnessNoShowsl  r @*  1)InvokethePoweroftheCourttoEnforcetheSubpoena.Firstenlistthe ! aidofthecourttoenforcethesubpoena.Whileadefendantmayhavenoremedy " whentheMarshalhasdonehisorherjobinattemptingtoserveawarrantbased #  uponafailureofthewitnesstoobeyasubpoena(e.g., + Peoplev.Avila(1967)253 $  _Cal.App_.2d308,330),thatdoesnotmeannothingcanbedone.  In < Peoplev. %0! Bossert(1910)14Cal.App.111,adefendantmovedthetrialcourtforcompulsory &B"  processatthecommencementofhistrialafterhelearnedthatsomeofhis (T#! witnesseswerenotpresent.Insteadofissuingprocess,thecourtaccededtothe )f$" prosecutor'ssuggestionandreadthewitnesses'previoustestimonytothejury.In (*x%# reversing,theappellatecourtstated: :+&$ Ї8  Thedefendantinthecaseatbarhadregularlysubpoenaedthe  witnessesinquestion;theirtestimonywasmaterialandimportantto  him.Neverthelessthecourtheldthathewasnotentitledtothe $ processofthecourtcompellingtheirattendance,andforcedthe 6 defendanttosubmithiscasetothejurywithoutthebenefitoftheir H oraltestimony.Bythisrulingitisclearthatthedefendantwas  Z deprivedofaconstitutionalright,forwhichthejudgmentandorder  l mustbereversed.(Id.at1116.). ~     2)IftheMarshalWon'torCan't,GetaContinuance.Failingtosuccessfully R  invokethepowerofthecourttoenforcethesubpoena,counselshouldrequesta d  continuancefortheday.(Seee.g.,AdoptionofMichaelD.(1989)209_Cal.App_.3d v  122,137["Trialcounseldidnotsubpoenaorobtaindeclarationsfromthepeople   Stevenclaimshecontacted.Nordidheseekacontinuancetodosowhenthetrial   judgeindicatedsuchevidencewouldbeimportanttothedefense"].)    Inarguingforacontinuance,therecordshouldreflect:(a)aparticular   namedandobtainablewitness;(b)materialityoftheevidence;(c)thenecessityof 2 histestimony;and(d)diligencetoobtainhisattendance.(Peoplev.Valladares D (1984)162_Cal.App_.3d312,319.) V     Thefailuretosecuretheattendanceofkeywitnessesisineffective *z assistanceofcounsel.(Peoplev.Rodriguez(1977)73_Cal.App_.3d1023);seealso < Peoplev.Shaw(1984)35Cal.3d535;InreHall(1981)30Cal.3d408);cf., N Peoplev.Marquez(1992)1Cal.4th553.) `   3)FailingTheAbove,CounselShouldHaveTheWitnessDeclared   UnavailableandHavePreviouslyTestimonyoftheWitnessReadtotheJury.This ! alternativeislessattractive,butatleastitwouldputbeforethejurythecritical " testimonyofthedefensewitnessinthecase.SeeEvidenceCodesections129091 #  (admissionofformertestimonyofunavailablewitness);section1230(statement $