Opinion ID: 2582262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Comment on Dr. Harrison's Testimony

Text: Defendant argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct in both his opening and rebuttal argument in connection with Dr. Harrison's testimony regarding Rosalind Wathel. (See ante, pt. II. C.4.) In opening argument, the prosecutor said, Can anyone . . . tell us why the defense chose to, and I'll use the expression, shanghai Rosalind Wathel on October 15th, 1992. . . . She testified on the 19th. Four days before her testimony they drag her to a psychologist in Houston. Chatman was arrested two years and four months ago. Were they that desperate that they would drag her to a psychologist so she could play with blocks and look at ink blots? Do any of you find this somewhat revolting that a witness, not a prosecution witness or a defense witness, but just a witness, was taken without a Court order in another city to be examined by a psychologist. Do any of you find this wrongfully intrusive? These are very private things. And it also should be noted that the psychologist's testimony, which cost $4,500, did not alter by one iota the information available to you to decide this case. The prosecutor then discussed in detail the testimony by Officer Christal and Regina Pickens-West that defendant offered to impeach Wathel. He concluded this discussion by saying, Instead of wild goose chases, there should be real evidence presented on behalf of the defense which validly attacked her. Such was not the case. This is what's important. Defendant contends this argument was an improper comment on the absence of evidence of Wathel's alleged mental impairment. He argues that the prosecutor may not argue that the defense has failed to prove something when the defense was precluded from doing so because of the prosecutor's objection. (See People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 430-431, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) It is not reasonably likely that the jury interpreted the comments this way. ( People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 663, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564, 828 P.2d 705 ( Clair ).) The first portion of these comments focused on the alleged impropriety of the defense investigators' subjecting Wathel to psychological testing. It did not imply what the results of that testing might have been. The second part, referring to wild goose chases, came after lengthy discussion of matters unconnected to the psychological evaluation. It is not reasonably likely the jury would associate that comment with the earlier discussion of the testing. Defendant's challenges to rebuttal must be evaluated in light of the defense argument to which it replied. Defense counsel discussed Wathel's testimony in detail, then argued, Where she got all these ideas I don't know. We didn't get into all of that as far as the brain function, but what does she say, what's the core? . . . She's just adding, confabulating. She's filling in all these details from a core that she got somewhere. . . . The prosecutor then argued on rebuttal, The discussion of Rosalind Wathel this morning was fascinating. . . . We had Rosalind going to a shrink, a psychologist, and then all of a sudden within a sentence we have Rosalind has mental problems. Well, I'm sorry, there is no evidence of that. He was here. There was no evidence of that. You can reread his testimony, albeit so very short, there was no evidence of that. You evaluate Rosalind's testimony based upon what you saw and what she said. Later, the prosecutor said of Wathel's testimony, If you can find a reason to discredit that testimony, then work with it. But all their horses, all their men and all their sources and all their shrinks have been incapable of discrediting this testimony. Had the prosecutor made these latter comments in his opening argument, the trial court might well have sustained an objection, and admonished the jury that no evidence was presented regarding the results of Dr. Harrison's examination. Instead, the comments responded to defense argument that could be interpreted as suggesting that Dr. Harrison did find mental problems. As such, they were intended to neutralize the defense argument. Taken in this light, they were reasonable rebuttal. Under the circumstances, defense counsel may reasonably have chosen not to object. In any event, there was no prejudice under any standard. The jury knew Dr. Harrison had expressed no opinion regarding Wathel's mental state.