Opinion ID: 2806518
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial - Guilt Phase

Text: Bemore was then tried separately. The prosecution centered its case on the testimony of residents of the Bates Street neighborhood who knew Bemore. Bates Street was known to be “a marginal neighborhood whose inhabitants generally knew one another and were involved in the sale and use of crack cocaine.” People v. Bemore, 22 Cal 4th. 809, 821 (2000). Taken together, the Bates Street residents testifying at trial placed Bemore on Bates Street the night of the murder, wearing shoes similar to the size thirteen sneakers whose footprints were left at the crime scene, and with fresh scratches on his back.3 Bemore’s friends Troy 3 Bemore alleges that the prosecution withheld or allowed to go uncorrected evidence pertaining to impeachment of many of these witnesses in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). We conclude, however, in the 8 BEMORE V. CHAPPELL Patterson and Jackie Robertson admitted to helping Bemore and Cosby drill a hole in the stolen safe. Several witnesses testified that Bemore had made statements to them implicating himself in Muck’s murder. In support of the torture special circumstance allegation, the prosecution’s expert witnesses testified about the circumstances and details of the murder. The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy, for example, concluded that Muck was likely restrained for some period of time during the attack. He opined that at least two knives were used to cause the thirty-seven wounds and that both knives recovered from Bemore’s trunk were consistent with at least some of the wounds. A crime scene reconstructionist concluded using blood spatter patterns that fifteen to thirty minutes passed from the initial assault to the last blow.4 At closing argument, the prosecution suggested that the evidence indicated that Bemore and Cosby had restrained and tortured Muck for the purpose of “forc[ing] [him] to open up the safe.” The defense, led by appointed counsel Robert McKechnie, presented few witnesses, relying primarily on Bemore’s own testimony. Bemore’s primary defense was a novel alibi. memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion that, applying AEDPA’s stringent standards, it would not have been unreasonable for the state court to deny those claims because Bemore was not prejudiced. 4 The defense made little effort to challenge the prosecution’s forensic experts. We find it unnecessary to reach Bemore’s IAC claim on that matter. See infra note 18. BEMORE V. CHAPPELL 9 According to Bemore, he was committing another robbery at the time of the Aztec crimes. Bemore told the jury that at approximately 9:00 pm on the evening of Muck’s death, he, Patterson, and Cosby drove to a K-Mart to case it for a robbery. While he was inside, Patterson and Cosby took off in his car. Left with no car and no cash, Bemore walked to a nearby Wherehouse Records store and robbed one of the clerks. He then got into a cab and went to buy cocaine, eventually returning to Bates Street to smoke the cocaine and to buy more. Some (unspecified) time later, Bemore went on, he saw Cosby and Patterson drive past in his car with a bloodcovered safe in the backseat. He helped his friends carry the safe to his garage, assisted them in opening it, and convinced them to give him a share of the money inside. Despite the earlier testimony of several Bates Street residents that Bemore had implicated himself in the murder, Bemore firmly denied knowing anything about it. On cross-examination, the alibi broke down. Twice Bemore referred to Wherehouse Records—the store he claimed to have robbed—as “Wherehouse Liquor.” He couldn’t remember which direction he had walked to get from K-Mart to Wherehouse Records; why he had chosen to rob Wherehouse Records over all the other stores he had passed along the way; or whether he had intended to rob the Wherehouse Records store when he walked into it. He couldn’t remember whether there had been people in the store when he pointed the gun at the cashier or whether any of the employees had said anything to him during or after the robbery. Nor could he remember several other aspects of the robbery, including what he said, how he handled the gun, and 10 BEMORE V. CHAPPELL how much money he took. He seemed to have forgotten factual details he had given in his direct testimony.5 Two witnesses to the Wherehouse Records robbery had identified Bemore as the robber at a preliminary hearing.6 To corroborate Bemore’s alibi at trial, counsel called the two as witnesses. One—the cashier, Yolanda Salvatierra—this time was not sure whether Bemore was the robber, and said she had in fact been unsure when she identified Bemore at the preliminary hearing. Both at trial and at the preliminary hearing, she described the robber as “muscular” and six-foottwo or six-foot-three. Bemore was six-foot-six, and he was thin both at the time the crimes occurred and at trial. Carrie Jacobs, the second Wherehouse Records robbery witness who had identified Bemore at the preliminary hearing, was unavailable at trial. Her testimony from the preliminary hearing was read to the jury. Although she had identified Bemore out of a lineup after the crime, Jacobs wasn’t sure at the preliminary hearing that Bemore was the person she had earlier identified; she “couldn’t . . . definitely say” that he was. Like Salvatierra, she remembered the robber as muscular and about six-foot-one, and she thought he was “possibly . . . darker” than Bemore. She reported that she had gotten only a fleeting glance at the Wherehouse 5 In his direct testimony, for example, Bemore said that he had approached a Wherehouse Records clerk and told her he was going to retrieve his checkbook from his car; he then left the store briefly, returned, and robbed the clerk at gunpoint. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked him, “You said something about a checkbook earlier?” Bemore responded “I said something about a checkbook?” 6 Bemore was initially charged with fourteen other robberies and three counts of assault in addition to the Aztec robbery. After a preliminary hearing, the magistrate held Bemore to answer for only the Aztec crimes and a few others; the others were later dismissed. BEMORE V. CHAPPELL 11 Records robber, who otherwise had his back to her the entire time. On rebuttal, the prosecution called a third eyewitness, Kim Rainer, an employee who was with Salvatierra when the store was robbed. Immediately following the robbery, Rainer described the perpetrator as a muscular black man of about Bemore’s height. At both the preliminary hearing and at trial Rainer said her initial descriptions were incorrect—perhaps due to her distress at the time—and that the robber was actually shorter than Bemore and had lighter skin. She stated that she could not positively identify Bemore as the robber of the Wherehouse Records store. Also on rebuttal, investigator Richard Cooksey testified, further calling into question Bemore’s description of the Wherehouse Records robbery. According to Cooksey, a parking structure mentioned in Bemore’s testimony did not exist at the time of the crime, and the distance from K-Mart to Wherehouse Records was longer than Bemore said it was. Crucially, Cooksey also testified that when he had driven from Wherehouse Records to Aztec Liquors, obeying all traffic laws, the travel time was just over sixteen minutes—meaning that even if Bemore had committed the Wherehouse Records robbery at 9:00 pm, he could easily have arrived at Aztec before Muck’s murder, which occurred around 10 pm. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. The jury also found true the special circumstances of murder during the commission of a robbery and murder involving the infliction of torture. 12 BEMORE V. CHAPPELL