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 ...
XVIII APPELLANT JOINS IN ALL CONTENTIONS RAISED BY HIS CO-APPELLANT THAT MAY ACCRUE TO HIS BENEFIT Appellant William Satele joins in all contentions raised by his co-appellant that may accrue to his benefit. (Rule 8.200, subdivision (a)(5), California Rules of Court ["Instead of filing a brief, or as a part of its brief, a party may join in or adopt by reference all or part ofa briefin the same or a related appeal."]; People v. Castillo (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 36,51; People v. Stone (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 15, 19 fn. 5; People v. Smith (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 41, 44.) CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully submitted on behalf of defendant and appellant WILLIAM SATELE that the judgment of conviction and sentence ofdeath must be reversed. DATED: Respectfully submitted, DAVID GOODWIN Attorney by foraAppellant WILLIAM SATELE 150
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT Rule 8.630, subdivision (b)(l)(C), California Rules of Court, states that an Appellant's Reply Brief in an appeal taken from a judgment of death produced on a computer must not exceed 47,593 words. The tables, the certificate of word count required by the rule, and any attachment permitted under Rule 8.204, subdivision (d), are excluded from the word count limit. Pursuant to Rule 8.630, subdivision (b), and In reliance upon Microsoft Office Word 2003 software which was used to prepare this document, I certify that the word count ofthis briefis 47,593 words. DATED: Respectfully submitted, DAVID GOODWIN 151
- Page 109 and 110: ut is only being allowed for use ag
- Page 111 and 112: x THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTI
- Page 113 and 114: XI THE PROSECUTOR'S MISCONDUCT IN A
- Page 115 and 116: "guarantee." Appellant is not proce
- Page 117 and 118: v. Berryman (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1048,
- Page 119 and 120: Contreras. Viewed in this context,
- Page 122 and 123: overwhelmingly showed that only one
- Page 124 and 125: XII GUILT AND PENALTY PHASE VERDICT
- Page 126 and 127: Where Juror No. 2211 is concerned,
- Page 128 and 129: The jury in Cruz was given a versio
- Page 130 and 131: PENALTY PHASE ISSUES XIV THE TRIAL
- Page 132 and 133: B. The Flaw In Respondent's Content
- Page 134 and 135: participation ofall jurors. Contrar
- Page 136 and 137: confuse[d]" (Harris) is no more tha
- Page 138: It is submitted that these instruct
- Page 141 and 142: inherent power to review an issue i
- Page 143 and 144: prospective jurors who were found t
- Page 145 and 146: (Id at p. 821.) This court has char
- Page 147 and 148: church. (18RT 4448:4-6,4451:11-14.)
- Page 149 and 150: (18RT 4450:12-14) or her mother (18
- Page 151 and 152: had in fact reached an impasse at t
- Page 153 and 154: There is an impasse. It is hung. Bu
- Page 155 and 156: establishes, for example, that, whe
- Page 157 and 158: and Code of Civil Procedure 233, wh
- Page 159: a demonstrable reality. The court a
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT<br />
Rule 8.630, subdivision (b)(l)(C), <strong>California</strong> Rules <strong>of</strong> Court, states<br />
that an <strong>Appellant</strong>'s <strong>Reply</strong> <strong>Brief</strong> in an appeal taken from a judgment <strong>of</strong> death<br />
produced on a computer must not exceed 47,593 words. The tables, the certificate<br />
<strong>of</strong> word count required by the rule, and any attachment permitted under Rule<br />
8.204, subdivision (d), are excluded from the word count limit.<br />
Pursuant to Rule 8.630, subdivision (b), and In reliance upon<br />
Micros<strong>of</strong>t Office Word 2003 s<strong>of</strong>tware which was used to prepare this document, I<br />
certify that the word count <strong>of</strong>this briefis 47,593 words.<br />
DATED:<br />
Respectfully submitted,<br />
DAVID GOODWIN<br />
151
Change language