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 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
argues appellant's reading <strong>of</strong> the instruction is "strained" and that other<br />
instructions corrected the misinstruction. (RB 188.)<br />
<strong>Appellant</strong> also argued that the instructional errors were reinforced by the<br />
prosecutor's argument (AOB at p. 99) and again in the language <strong>of</strong> the verdict<br />
forms, which only provided a place for the jury to find appellant was liable as the<br />
actual shooter. Respondent contends the prosecutor correctly stated the applicable<br />
law in argument. (RB at p. 188-189.) In his topic heading, respondent contends<br />
there was no defect in the verdict fonn; but in his substantive text he argues that<br />
the wording <strong>of</strong>the verdict forms was immaterial because the verdicts indicated the<br />
jury's intention to find both appellants liable for the gun use. (RB 190).<br />
Respondent is wrong on all counts.<br />
B. Respondent's Two-Shooter Theory Contradicts the Theory On Which The<br />
Case Was Tried, and Respondent Must Be Estopped From Asserting It<br />
As explained above (ante, at pp. 8-11), at trial, the prosecutor presented (1)<br />
substantial evidence that only one shooter shot and killed Edward Robinson and<br />
Renesha Fuller and (2) admitted he had presented insufficient evidence to prove<br />
the identity <strong>of</strong>the shooter. In colloquy with court and counsel and in argument to<br />
the jury, the prosecutor freely acknowledged that this was the state <strong>of</strong> the<br />
evidence. (13RT 3048-3049; 14RT 3222-3223; AOB 53-58.)<br />
In the opening brief, appellant described the evidence establishing that only<br />
one person shot and killed the victims. (AOB at pp. 32-33, 38-39.) As discussed<br />
above (ante, at pp. 9-12), the evidence included (1) forensic firearms evidence that<br />
all <strong>of</strong> the gunshots were fired from a single, very large, and unwieldy "high<br />
capacity rapid fire semiautomatic" weapon (9RT 1979, 1986, 1987-1989); (2)<br />
percipient witness testimony that the gunshots occurred in a single rapid burst that<br />
did not allow for even a quick exchange <strong>of</strong> the firearm between the car's<br />
occupants (5RT 983-984, 988-990); (3) coroner's testimony that the placement <strong>of</strong><br />
64