Opinion ID: 1237936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: The Immunity Order

Text: (69) The prosecution offered in evidence an order granting immunity to prosecution witness Thompson. The defense did not object and the trial court admitted the order as an exhibit. The prosecutor read the order to the jury during opening statement and again during closing argument, and it was available to the jury during deliberations. Defendant contends that the order was inadmissible because it included a statement that the court had found the grant of immunity was not contrary to the public interest. Defendant contends this statement was prejudicial to the defense because a reasonable juror might conclude that the judge, before granting immunity to Thompson, had reviewed Thompson's proposed testimony and found it to be credible. Defendant recognizes that a claim of error in the admission of evidence is generally not cognizable on appeal in the absence of a specific and timely objection in the trial court on the ground urged on appeal. (Evid. Code, § 353.) He contends that his trial counsel's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and should be reviewed as such. Proof that Thompson was testifying under a grant of immunity gave the defense a ground for attacking his credibility because it showed he had made a deal with the prosecution and would suffer no adverse penal consequences from any self-incriminating statements he made during his testimony. The order was direct evidence that Thompson had been granted immunity. Therefore, it is understandable that the defense did not object to the order itself. The defense could have sought to sanitize the order by removing the language noted by defendant, but we are of the view that the failure to do so did not constitute ineffective assistance. A reasonable juror would be unlikely to view the statement that immunity was not contrary to the public interest as an endorsement of Thompson's credibility. The prosecutor did not urge the jurors to view it this way, and the trial court instructed the jury that the testimony of an accomplice ought to be viewed with distrust and that Thompson was an accomplice as a matter of law. The court also told the jury, You are the sole judges of the believability of a witness and the weight to be given to the testimony of each witness.