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