Opinion ID: 2517801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-examination of defense prison expert

Text: Jiro Enomoto, a former Director of the Department of Corrections, testified for the defense that, based on defendant's pretrial jail records, he would not pose a safety risk to prison staff or inmates if sentenced to life without parole. On cross-examination, the prosecutor elicited the witness's admissions that he frequently testified for criminal defendants on prison-adjustment issues, and had done so perhaps three or four times in the past year. The prosecutor then asked, In fact, a few weeks ago you testified across the hall in the case of the gentleman that was convicted of four separate murders and six attempted murders that he would adjust well to prison life also; is that correct? The witness responded, That's correct; yes. Defendant did not object. Defendant now insists the prosecutor's question unfairly impugned the witness's credibility, and thus compromised a reliable penalty determination in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The absence of a trial objection, where an admonition would have cured any harm, forfeits the claim. The contention lacks merit in any event. [A]n expert's testimony in prior cases involving similar issues is a legitimate subject of cross-examination. ( Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th 324, 457, 3 Cal. Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.) Despite arguable differences in the facts of the two cases, they involved similar issues of the expert's views on prison adjustment. The prosecutor was entitled to expose bias in the witness by showing his propensity to advocate for criminal defendants even in extreme cases. No misconduct occurred.