14.06.2013 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!