Opinion ID: 1191763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Can defendant's death sentence withstand review of the credibility of Woods and the veracity of McCrimmon and Minnitt?

Text: Defendant invites this court to set aside his death penalty because of the alleged unreliability of Woods, Minnitt, and McCrimmon. He claims that Woods' unreliability is self-evident and that McCrimmon and Minnitt indulged in blame-shifting in their conversation with Woods. In support of his contention that McCrimmon and Minnitt were the ringleaders of the El Grande robbery, defendant refers to his McCrimmon/Minnitt Factsheet which shows that McCrimmon and Minnitt were older than he, that they both had longer criminal records than he, and that, unlike he, they each had been involved in a botched robbery/shooting (the Mariano Pizza Case). From these additional facts, defendant posits, it is reasonable to infer that it was McCrimmon and Minnitt, not [Fong], who master-minded and planned the El Grande robbery. As we have already noted, the issue of credibility is not an issue to be decided de novo by this court. See supra Trial Issue V. The issue of sufficiency of the evidence has also been addressed above. See supra Trial Issues III-V.