Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
B. The Prosecutor Committed Misconduct By Invoking His Personal Prestige<br />
And Reputation<br />
In People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Ca1.4th 175, this court stated the general<br />
rule regarding misconduct.<br />
The general rule is that improper vouching for the strength <strong>of</strong><br />
the prosecution's case '''involves an attempt to bolster a witness by<br />
reference to facts outside the record.'" (People v. <strong>William</strong>s (1997)<br />
16 Ca1.4th 153,257, italics omitted.) Thus, it is misconduct for<br />
prosecutors to vouch for the strength <strong>of</strong>their cases by invoking their<br />
personal prestige, reputation, or depth <strong>of</strong>experience, or the prestige<br />
or reputation <strong>of</strong>their <strong>of</strong>fice, in support <strong>of</strong>it. (See, e.g., People v.<br />
Ayala (2000) 24 Ca1.4th 243, 288; <strong>William</strong>s, supra, at p. 257; People<br />
v. Medina (1995) 11 Ca1.4th 694, 756-758.)<br />
(People v. Huggins, supra, 38 Ca1.4th at pp. 206-207.)<br />
As appellant explained above and in the opening brief, the prosecutor<br />
vouched for the credibility <strong>of</strong> a key prosecution witness with the words, "I<br />
guarantee that is the truth." The prosecutor also vouched for the accuracy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
prosecution's version <strong>of</strong> appellant's statements in the van by saying, "I will back<br />
up my words" and "I will stake my reputation on it."<br />
Despite the well-known prohibition against prosecutorial vouching, the<br />
prosecutor thus expressly invoked his reputation and personal prestige. This was<br />
clear misconduct.<br />
C. The Prosecutor's Vouching Comments Were Prejudicial<br />
"Improper remarks by a prosecutor can "'so infect[] the trial with<br />
unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial <strong>of</strong> due process.'" (Darden<br />
v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 168, 181; Donnelly v. DeChrist<strong>of</strong>oro (1974) 416<br />
U.S. 637, 642; cf People v. Hill (1998) 17 Ca1.4th 800,819.) Under state law, a<br />
prosecutor who uses deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade either the<br />
court or the jury has committed misconduct, even if such action does not render<br />
the trial fundamentally unfair. (People v. Hill, supra, 17 Ca1.4th at p. 819; People<br />
102