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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Respondent notes that between the movement of the Fuller's car rolling a short distance and the activity ofthe people who came to the aid ofRobinson and Fuller, it is possible that the casings could have been moved from their original position, and therefore the cluster ofcasings could have been coincidental. (RB at p. 117.) However, respondent is once again engaging in pure speculation in an attempt to counter the only logical inference from the evidence. While it is possible that the casings could have been inadvertently kicked or otherwise moved by people in the area, there is no evidence that this actually took place. Moreover, even if the casings were kicked or otherwise inadvertently moved from their original positions, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have been accidentally kicked or moved together into a cluster. Rather, random, multiple forces would be expected to move the casings in different directions. Furthermore, the evidence showed that Jacques and Mr. Vasquez were attempting to aid the victims in the car, which rolled some distance down the street after the shots were fired, and that the shots were in fact fired from the middle of the street. Thus, none of these witnesses would have been in the area where the casings were found, and the police who arrived on the scene were all trained not to move evidence. Therefore, none ofthese forces would have caused the casings to group together as respondent speculates. Thus, while this scenario suggested by respondent is possible, it is highly unlikely. Respondent characterizes the testimony of Vasquez that both defendants confessed to him as "strong" evidence that each defendant was the shooter. In fact, as set forth in appellant's opening brief [AOB at pp. 39-41], this evidence is far from "strong" for numerous reasons. First, Vasquez was a jailhouse informant, one of the few classes of witnesses whose testimony is viewed as so inherently unreliable that special instructions are required to inform the jury to view the testimony with "caution and close scrutiny." (Pen. Code § 1127a.) Furthermore, the instruction on the credibility of a jailhouse informant specifically directs the jury to consider the 12
defendants made admissions that could implicate them in the crime. Rather, appellant asserts that based on the facts presented, the conclusion that both appellants fired the rifle is inherently improbable. It is true that in some cases courts will not disturb an unreasonable jury finding that is nevertheless not factually impossible. However, "not impossible" is not a standard that satisfies the Eighth Amendment requirement of heightened reliability in capital cases. Rather, ifthe scenario relied upon for the imposition is death is highly improbable, even though legally possible, the verdict should be reversed. Finally, some of respondent's recitations of fact do not appear to have any relevance to this issue. For example, respondent notes that the prosecutor argued to the jury that he did not think the defendants were going to argue in closing argument that they got out of the car. (RB at p. 118, quoting 13RT 3081-3082.) The prosecutor's speculation as to whether the defendants were or were not going to argue that the shots were fired from outside the car obviously has no relation to how fast the shots were fired or who fired them. Similarly, respondent notes that Robinson was standing near Fuller's car when he was shot but his body was found 10 feet from the trunk ofthat car and he had been shot three times. From this respondent concludes that one defendant fired a firearm from inside the car, and then the other defendant frred it from outside the car. (RB at p. 118.) Respondent apparently forgets Bertha Jacque testified that after she reached inside the car to turn offthe engine, causing the car to start rolling, and therefore the car rolled from its original position long after the shots were fired and the defendants had departed. (5RT 1002.) Therefore, the distance between Robinson's body and the fmal location ofthe car has no relation to how quickly the shots were fired. Thus, these facts fail to support respondent's speculation that one person fired from inside the car, gave the gun to the other defendant standing outside the car, who then fired another burst ofshots. 17
Page 2 and 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANT WILLIAM
Page 4 and 5: 2. The Pleadings Failed To NotifY A
Page 6 and 7: VI THE JURy FAILED TO FIND THE DEGR
Page 8 and 9: C. Standard OfReview And Prejudice
Page 10 and 11: XIII APPELLANT JOINS IN ALL ISSUES
Page 12 and 13: Mitchell v. Esparza (2003) 540 U.S.
Page 14 and 15: People v. Cruz (2001) 93 Cal.App.4t
Page 16 and 17: People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 2
Page 18 and 19: CALlIC No. 8.31 passim CALJIC No. 8
Page 20 and 21: ARGUMENTS GUILT PHASE ISSUES I THE
Page 22 and 23: the facts indicate that only one de
Page 24 and 25: form finding "personal use" to have
Page 26 and 27: 57 Cal.AppAth 871, 877; 9 Witkin, C
Page 28 and 29: the weapon. Without again recountin
Page 32 and 33: In another apparent attempt to just
Page 34 and 35: appellant has repeatedly said, the
Page 37 and 38: not present them to the trial court
Page 39 and 40: In People v. Knighten (1980) 105 Ca
Page 41 and 42: Finally, it must be noted that the
Page 43 and 44: B. The Constitutional Issues Are No
Page 45 and 46: turn relied on the language from Wi
Page 47 and 48: Indeed, in this case the instructio
Page 49 and 50: as the prosecution's first-degree t
Page 51 and 52: F. Conclusion In summary, by failin
Page 53 and 54: As appellant explained in the openi
Page 55 and 56: in the manner suggested by responde
Page 57 and 58: Furthennore, it is well established
Page 59 and 60: Appellant has explained above and i
Page 61 and 62: Cal.App.3d 970, 992.) Instead, resp
Page 63 and 64: 3. Appellant's Did Not Forfeit His
Page 65 and 66: In Argument V of the Opening Brief,
Page 67 and 68: IV IN FAILING TO REDACT PORTIONS OF
Page 69 and 70: People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Ca1.3d
Page 71 and 72: have been unreasonable for the jury
Page 73 and 74: shot Fuller and Robinson, and that
Page 75 and 76: find 'intent to kill'" on the basis
Page 77 and 78: THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION A
Page 79 and 80: Robinson's wounds indicated the sho
Page 81 and 82:
caused great bodily injury or death
Page 83 and 84:
use enhancement, the statutory lang
Page 85 and 86:
192-193), but fails to explain how
Page 87 and 88:
Then we have the words "personal us
Page 89 and 90:
trial and had therefore forfeited t
Page 91 and 92:
merits of appellant's claim. (AOB a
Page 93 and 94:
jury trial. (People v. Gottman (197
Page 95 and 96:
Respondent argues that another theo
Page 97 and 98:
needs to rely on the penalty verdic
Page 99 and 100:
may not cross-examine a witness upo
Page 101 and 102:
itself to appellant would be improp
Page 103 and 104:
B. The Court Erred In Refusing The
Page 105 and 106:
egarding the intent ofthe non-shoot
Page 107 and 108:
B. Respondent's Arguments Are Mispl
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 and 160:
a demonstrable reality. The court a
Page 161 and 162:
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT Rule 8.63
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?