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

had testified that he had seen the shots being fired. Finally, as respondent notes
(RB at p. 116.), Frank Jacque also described the shooting in a manner that would
create an inference ofa single fast burst ofshots, even ifhe did not break that span
down into the precise number ofseconds.
Thus, the independent testimony of three different witnesses confirms that
the shots were fired within a matter of a few seconds at most. The only logical
inference that can be drawn from this evidence is that one person fired the
weapon. Appellant submits that it would not be a logical inference to conclude
that one person fired a first burst of shots, handed the bulky rifle to the other
person in a different part of the car, and that person took the time to have
accurately taken aim and fired another burst ofshots.
Indeed, it is this multiple shooter theory that requires not only speculation,
but absurd speculation. No one testified that there even was a second burst of
shots, nor was there any testimony regarding a delay between shots, and there is
thus no evidence to support such a theory. Moreover, respondent does not and
cannot explain why the shooters would engage in such an awkward and pointless
exercise as passing a bulky rifle back and forth within the car in the middle of a
drive-by shooting.
Furthermore, other evidence also corroborates this theory of one shooter.
The medical examiner's testimony regarding the placement of wounds on
Robinson and Fuller suggests that the shots were fired from essentially the same
position. The crime scene evidence that the casings were found clustered together
also supports the inference that the weapon was not moved any substantial
distance between shots. (See AOB, p. 33.) Obviously, since the rifle shots were
fired from a moving car, the fact that they all appeared to have been fired from
approximately the same position indicates they were fired in a single, rapid burst
and, equally obviously, by a single shooter.
Respondent argues that the position of the casings does not necessarily
indicate that the rifle was not passed between the defendants during the shooting.
11