Opinion ID: 1179776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Characterization of James Valdez.

Text: (44) Through James Valdez, the prosecution presented aggravating evidence that later in the evening of the Beacon crimes, defendant committed an assault on Joe during a drug rip-off. Defense counsel's argument vigorously attacked Valdez's credibility. Counsel characterized Valdez as someone who could have very easily been charged with murder first degree and even a special circumstance situation in connection with the Beacon incident. Nonetheless, counsel observed, Valdez had been charged with nothing and had [gotten] away with everything, though you're probably sitting there thinking that he was as much involved in this thing as anybody else. Counsel stressed that Valdez also appeared to be a coconspirator in the drug rip-off and might even have totally made this thing up about the assault on Joe. In rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that Valdez has been described to you as just this terrible monster. Well, he's not a pretty person. There's no doubt about that. But Valdez is not a murderer. He's not a rapist. He's not a robber. He's not a kidnapper. He's not an oral copulator. Defense counsel objected that [w]e don't know about that. The prosecutor responded angrily that [w]e're talking about the evidence in this case, Judge.... The trial court told the prosecutor to stop shouting, but it did not rule on the objection or admonish the jury. Defendant complains the prosecutor's remarks violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and a reliable penalty determination by referring to matters not in evidence. We disagree. As the prosecutor suggested below, he sought only to rehabilitate Valdez by reminding the jurors that the defense attack on this witness was founded on speculation not supported by the evidence. Indeed, the prosecutor made that clear in the jury's presence when he stated, in response to defense counsel's objection, that [w]e're talking about the evidence in this case.  (Italics added.) There is no reasonable likelihood the jury misinterpreted the prosecutor's argument as a reference to information about Valdez's criminal history which had not been presented in court.