Opinion ID: 844218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Asserted Attempt to Dissuade Avila from Testifying

Text: At a hearing outside the presence of the jury, during which the trial court considered whether to permit the defense to present evidence regarding the Vikings and the civil lawsuit against the sheriff's department, defense counsel made an offer of proof asserting that Avila would testify to the circumstances of the shooting of Deputy Blair and his interactions with the Vikings, essentially consistent with Avila's ultimate testimony at the trial. Avila was not present at the hearing. After the offer of proof, the prosecutor advised the court that in testifying that he was the person who threw the gun, Avila would be significantly incriminating himself, and as a possible third-strike candidate, might face a sentence of 25 years to life in prison if he were to be convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The prosecutor questioned whether, if Avila had the advice of independent counsel, he would choose to testify. Defense counsel then advised the court that he had discussed the matter with Avila more than once, and had explained what his constitutional rights are [and] his possible exposure to additional charges. According to defense counsel, Avila wished to have independent counsel appointed to advise him. The trial court then had Avila brought before the court and advised him that at his request the court would appoint counsel to discuss with him the possibility that you may be implicating yourself in criminal activity that could have serious consequences to you. Avila ultimately chose to testify after consulting with the attorney who had been appointed to advise him. Defendant contends on appeal that the prosecutor's actions constituted an improper attempt to interfere with defendant's ability to exercise his constitutional right to compulsory process. (See In re Martin (1987) 44 Cal.3d 1, 30 [241 Cal.Rptr. 263, 744 P.2d 374] [a defendant's constitutional right to compulsory process is violated when the government interferes with the exercise of his right to present witnesses on his own behalf, including the intimidation of defense witnesses by the prosecution].) This claim is forfeited because defendant did not raise a claim of a compulsory process violation in the trial court. ( People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 991 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, 140 P.3d 775] ( Lewis and Oliver ).)