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

have been unreasonable for the jury to have reached this conclusion, the jury had
to find intent to kill as to both appellants.
It is also noteworthy that respondent argues that this claim fails ifthis court
finds that the jury "necessarily found sufficient evidence to find 'intent to kill' as
to both appellant, regardless of whether they were actual shooters or
accomplices." (RB at pp. 177-178, italics added.) Conversely, ifthis court does
agree the jury "necessarily" found these facts, the claim should prevail. However,
while a jury could draw an inference of intent on the part of one of the appellants
from some of the facts on respondent's list, none of the facts recited, either
individually or collectively, compel the conclusion the jury "necessarily" must
have found intent to kill on the part of both appellants, which is what respondent
argues is required to rebut this claim. 5
An examination of the facts relied upon by respondent do not demonstrate
that the jury could have concluded that both defendants fired the shots.
For example, respondent refers to Vasquez's testimony that appellant
bragged about having committed the offense. (RT at p. 178-179.) Insofar as
respondent relies on appellant's admissions as necessarily establishing his role as
the shooter and/or his intent to kill, there are several flaws with this contention.
First, as explained previously, Vasquez's testimony reporting appellant's
and Nunez's supposed hearsay statements to him was inherently unreliable.
Vasquez was a paid snitch who received a reward in exchange for his testimony
against these two defendants, and even apart from this, the content of his
testimony-that he just happened to meet both codefendants in two separate jails
and both confessed to him, even though they were members of a rival gang-- was
5 Appellant has previously shown (ante, at pp. 5-7.) that the "true" finding on the
personal firearm use allegation as to both defendants was based not on the jury's
beliefthat both defendants actually fired the gun, but rather on the prosecutor's
confusingly worded verdict form and his argument that the jury could make the
dual finding on a vicarious liability basis. Accordingly, that finding does not
assist respondent's argument.
57