Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

Contreras.
Viewed in this context, the vouching appears to be calculated and not
happenstance. And, then, of course, the prosecutor repeated the vouching in
connection with the van conversation during rebuttal argument. This second
instance of vouching demonstrates either that the prosecutor understood that the
court overruled trial counsel's objection to the prosecutor's "guarantee," or the
prosecutor was confused by its ambiguity, or the prosecutor acted in flagrant
disregard ofthe ruling. Bad faith on the part ofthe prosecutor is not a prerequisite
for appellate relief. (People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 822.)
A prosecutor is held to a standard higher than that imposed on other
attorneys because of the unique function he or she performs in representing the
interests, and in exercising the sovereign power, of the State. (People v. Kelley
(1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 672, 690.) As the United States Supreme Court has
explained, the prosecutor represents "a sovereignty whose obligation to govern
impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest,
therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice
shall be done." (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88; People v.
Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 806,820.)
Here, it seems the prosecutor resorted to reprehensible methods to attempt
to persuade the jury that Vasquez and Contreras were credible people and that the
information attributed to them was sufficiently substantial to support the
convictions. The error was not harmless under the test ofPeople v. Watson (1956)
46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) It is precisely because the credibility of both Vasquez and
Contreras was so suspect and because their information so instrumental to the
prosecution's contention that appellant was an occupant within the car driven by
Caballeros that a result more favorable to appellant would have been reached in
the absence ofthe vouching.
For the reasons stated here and in the opening brief, appellant respectfully
submits the judgment ofconviction must be reversed.
105