Opinion ID: 1179950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Asserted Perjury

Text: At the hearing on the prior reference in 1964 Frank Oxandaboure was questioned about discussions he had with Los Angeles authorities relative to crimes committed by Michael. In the course of his testimony the following appears: Q. And was there any discussion of this particular matter, whereby there was any promise made that there would be no prosecution of Mike Rosoto if he helped you and testified? A. No sir. Q. Were there any assurances given to Michael Rosoto by you or anyone that Michael Rosoto would receive immunity if he testified? A. I did not give him any. I know of no one else who did. At that hearing Oxandaboure also denied that there were any conversations with Los Angeles law enforcement agencies in which a promise was made that there would be no prosecution of Michael if he helped with the investigation and testified at the trial. Oxandaboure also denied that he ever requested any law enforcement agency in Los Angeles County to refrain from bringing Michael to trial in Los Angeles County, that he threatened Michael with prosecution for the South Seas robbery if he did not testify at the murder trial or at the hearing on the 1964 reference, and that he never assured Michael that he could testify in this trial without fear of arrest by the Los Angeles authorities. On February 4, 1960, Michael was interviewed by Oxandaboure, the prosecuting attorney, and two police officers. The interview was taped and the pertinent portions are set out in the margin. [5] In 1957 Michael had been acquitted of a robbery charge in Los Angeles. There were several additional robberies in Los Angeles and Michael did not want to leave Seattle for California because of his fear of prosecution for such additional robberies. In addition Michael had been indicted for the South Seas robbery in Orange County. Before Michael's arrival in Orange County on February 4, 1960, Oxandaboure contacted the Los Angeles authorities and secured their agreement not to arrest and prosecute him while he was in Orange County assisting on the case. The understanding according to Oxandaboure was that the Los Angeles authorities could do what they wished after the trial had been completed. Michael has never been tried for the South Seas robbery or the six or seven Los Angeles robberies. [6] Petitioners also claimed that the prosecution was guilty of perjury at the hearing on the first reference. It appears that he testified at the 1964 hearing in the following manner: Q. Did you promise Michael Rosoto he wouldn't go to jail in Los Angeles? A. I don't believe we discussed it ... I don't think we did. Now maybe I don't know. As noted, the prosecutor was present at the February 4, 1960, interview conducted by Oxandaboure. The claim of perjury is based on the matters set out in the footnote from that interview. The prosecutor did not make any representations of immunity personally; perjury is claimed on the basis of Oxandaboure's statements in the prosecutor's presence. It is also claimed that Mrs. Smith and another member of the district attorney's staff were guilty of perjury at the hearing on the 1964 reference. They had heard through electronic means a conversation between Rosoto and Vlahovich in a parking lot. The conversation was recorded but the tape presently is in large part incomprehensible. Mrs. Smith prepared a transcript of the conversation based on the tape and her recollection of what was said. In preparing the transcript, she utilized audio filtering equipment at a local radio station and at the Los Angeles Police Department. Mrs. Smith and the staff member both testified that at one point in the conversation the following occurred: [Vlahovich]: Boy, he really screwed it up himself. Joe, you were so far away from it and I was so close ... ah.... [Rosoto]: You looked so close. [Vlahovich]: Boy, I got so scared, for two hours I couldn't drink a fucking beer. The foregoing cannot be heard on the tape. Both Mrs. Smith and the staff member testified that they were able to hear the words loud and clear on the monitor although the portion of the tape involved has a great deal of interference and static. The staff member said that the conversation made a strong impression on him because he knew Rosoto had been in an airplane when the shooting had occurred and this was the first confirmation that Vlahovich, Franklin and Johnson, the alleged triggerman, were at the scene of the murder. One of defense counsel who had heard the tape prior to trial said he thought he had heard the words as described by Mrs. Smith when he played the tape repeatedly prior to trial. There was testimony by an expert that the transcription of the tape is inaccurate because it assertedly omits a few words and because it includes some extra words, although the expert could not identify the words on the tapes. It also appears that the sentences quoted above are out of context because the preceding and subsequent sentences deal with Rosoto and Vlahovich being in cells and being transported to court. (3) The testimony of a witness is ordinarily elicited either by general questions seeking a narration of events or a series of specific questions calling for specific answers as to each fact. (3 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourne ed. 1970) §§ 766, 767; Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) § 1154.) When counsel uses the latter method the witness should respond to the question. He should not evade or volunteer matters not specifically asked for; the nonresponsive answer may be stricken on motion of the questioner who is entitled to elicit testimony in his own way and to confine the scope of the examination as he sees fit. (Witkin, Cal. Evidence, supra, § 1165.) The reason for this rule is dramatically illustrated by the defense counsel's testimony that he chose not to present evidence at trial of Oxandaboure's guarantee that Michael would not be prosecuted because the guarantee had been conditioned on Michael telling the truth, and the jury's knowledge of the condition might be harmful. Counsel's trial strategy would have been defeated if Oxandaboure or Michael, although not asked about a guarantee of immunity, had nevertheless been permitted to volunteer it. (4) It is thus apparent that when, as here, a witness' answers are literally true he may not be faulted for failing to volunteer more explicit information. Although such testimony may cause a misleading impression due to the failure of counsel to ask more specific questions, the witness' failure to volunteer testimony to avoid the misleading impression does not constitute perjury because the crucial element of falsity is not present in his testimony. (Cf. Bronston v. United States (1973) 409 U.S. 352, 357-359 [34 L.Ed.2d 568, 573-574, 93 S.Ct. 595, 599-600]; People v. Wong Fook Sam (1905) 146 Cal. 114, 118 [79 P. 848]; People v. Di Giacomo (1961) 193 Cal. App.2d 688, 692 [14 Cal. Rptr. 574].) (5) Insofar as appears from the record before us Oxandaboure's denials at the hearing on the prior reference of guarantees or assurances of immunity were literally true. The questions put to him asked whether he had guaranteed or assured Michael immunity if he testified. The guarantee conversation occurred during investigation before charges were brought against petitioners, and the guarantee of immunity was conditioned not on merely testifying but on telling the truth. Oxandaboure was not required to volunteer testimony as to a guarantee other than the one of which he was asked, and although his answers to the questions asked may have left a misleading impression that not even a conditional guarantee was made, he was never asked whether a conditional guarantee of any kind was made. Similarly, the record fails to show falsity of Oxandaboure's denials of arrangements with Los Angeles law enforcement authorities to give Michael immunity. There is no direct evidence of such arrangements. We are satisfied that reasonably construed the record shows only that Oxandaboure secured from the Los Angeles authorities promises not to arrest or prosecute while Michael was in Orange County cooperating with the officials of that county. Although the record shows that Michael was not prosecuted in Los Angeles County subsequent to his acquittal of the 1957 robbery charge, it further appears that the Los Angeles officials had made no efforts to bring him to trial on the outstanding charges during the period of more than a year before Oxandaboure's activities. In these circumstances the lack of prosecution appears to be due to independent reasons and does not furnish a basis for implying an agreement granting immunity arranged by Oxandaboure with the Los Angeles authorities. Finally, there is no evidence that Oxandaboure made assurances to Michael with respect to the latter's testimony at the hearing on the first reference. Although great weight is accorded findings of a referee based in substantial part on the credibility of witnesses, the referee's findings of perjury by Oxandaboure are not based in the main on the credibility of witnesses. They are primarily based on documentary proof and inferences drawn from undisputed facts. In such circumstances we are at no disadvantage in examining the record and making conclusionary findings. For the reasons stated we conclude that petitioners have failed to establish that Oxandaboure is guilty of perjury in any of the instances charged. (6) Although the prosecuting attorney at the first reference originally stated that there was no discussion of a promise that Michael would not go to jail in Los Angeles, he immediately corrected the answer: I don't think we did. Now maybe I don't know. The record does not warrant a conclusion that the equivocal answer constitutes perjury. The only discussion relating to a promise of immunity occurred on February 4, 1960, and more than four years elapsed before the prosecutor testified. It does not appear that the content of the discussion had been called to his attention in the intervening period, and there is no substantial reason to doubt the truthfulness of his ultimate answer that he did not recall such discussion although it may have occurred. Petitioners claim that Mrs. Smith and the staff member perjured themselves on the basis of the testimony of the expert that Mrs. Smith's transcription of the parking lot conversation omits some words from and includes others not present on the tape recording. The expert did not dispute that the portion of the tape involved could not now be deciphered. Since defense counsel said he believed he heard the words testified to by Mrs. Smith and the staff member, the testimony does not furnish a basis for concluding they committed perjury. We conclude accordingly, that petitioners have not met their burden of proving that any representative of the state committed perjury at the trial or the hearing on the first reference.