Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Survey of Other Capital Cases

Text: (40) Shortly before the defense penalty case began, defendant moved outside the jury's presence to introduce testimony by Dr. Radelet, a college professor. Dr. Radelet had purportedly conducted a survey of miscarriages of justice in capital cases, i.e., cases in which the defendant was pardoned or found factually innocent because of circumstances that arose after trial. Defendant argued that this information would assist the jury in determining whether there was a lingering doubt as to defendant's guilt. The prosecutor objected primarily on relevance grounds. The court sustained the objection. Aside from any foundational or other problems, the proffered evidence was irrelevant as a matter of law. Much like accounts of the executions of others (see discussion, ante ), information about trials, verdicts, and sentences in unrelated criminal cases had no bearing on the appropriate penalty in this particular case. As we have said many times, such a determination rests on the jury's individualized assessment of the circumstances of the capital crime, and the character and background of the defendant. No error occurred. (See People v. Grant, supra, 45 Cal.3d 829, 860.)