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 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
v. Berryman (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1048, 1072; People v. Price (1991) 1 Ca1.4th 324,<br />
447.) (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Ca1.4th 1114.)<br />
In spite <strong>of</strong> the foregoing authorities, respondent argues that appellant was<br />
not prejudiced by the vouching comments. (RB at p. 136-142.) Respondent first<br />
contends appellant's due process rights to a fair trial were not violated because the<br />
prosecutor conceded to the jury he had failed to prove the identity <strong>of</strong>the shooter in<br />
the face <strong>of</strong> contrary evidence both defendants were the shooters. (RB at p. 137<br />
139.) Respondent does not explain how the prosecutor's concession lessens the<br />
impact <strong>of</strong>the prosecutor's vouching comments and, ifthere is a link that appellant<br />
has failed to discern, it must be a very attenuated one.<br />
In any event, the prosecutor's vouching plainly infected the trial with<br />
unfairness so as to make the resulting conviction a denial <strong>of</strong> due process. Here,<br />
the prosecutor vouched for the credibility <strong>of</strong> Ernie Vasquez, arguably the key<br />
witness in terms <strong>of</strong> connecting appellant and Nunez to the shooting. It was<br />
Vasquez who linked appellant and Nunez to the shooting by testifYing that both<br />
had admitted the shooting to him and that he had seen Caballeros driving a car<br />
with other occupants in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the shooting on more than one occasion<br />
prior to the shooting. Vasquez, however, suffered from severe credibility<br />
problems because he too had been charged with criminal conduct, because he had<br />
received many financial and legal benefits for his testimony, and because <strong>of</strong> the<br />
extraordinary nature <strong>of</strong>his claim that both appellant and Nunez had independently<br />
admitted firing the shots.<br />
When trial counsel objected to the prosecutor's "guarantee," the prosecutor<br />
was speaking <strong>of</strong> Vasquez' identification <strong>of</strong> Caballeros as the driver <strong>of</strong> the car on<br />
the night <strong>of</strong> the shooting. The gist <strong>of</strong> this point <strong>of</strong>the prosecutor's argument was<br />
that Vasquez' identification <strong>of</strong> Caballeros corroborated Joshua Contreras'<br />
statement to detectives that Caballeros, appellant, and Nunez were together earlier<br />
in the evening before the shooting and again at the park after the shooting. The<br />
clear inference to be drawn from such information is that appellant and Nunez<br />
103