Opinion ID: 1454621
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Removal Orders for Defense Witnesses in the Custody of the Sierra County Sheriff

Text: In an effort to impeach Barrett's testimony, the defense called as witnesses three of her fellow inmates in the Sierra County jail. Essentially, they testified to conversations with her in which she stated, consistent with defendant's testimony at trial, that defendant was taking the rap for her. Defendant observes that in order to call these witnesses he was required to apply for and obtain removal orders that were served on the Sierra County Sheriff. Because the sheriff informed the prosecutor about the orders, he was able to interview the defense witnesses before they testified. Based on these events, defendant claims a violation of both his Fifth Amendment rights and our decisions in Allen v. Superior Court (1976) 18 Cal.3d 520, 526-527 [134 Cal. Rptr. 774, 557 P.2d 65], and Prudhomme v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 320, 326 [85 Cal. Rptr. 129, 466 P.2d 673], in which we held that a criminal defendant cannot be compelled to reveal the names of prospective witnesses because disclosure might serve to lessen the government's burden of proof. (36) We need not reach the merits of defendant's argument because he has waived any alleged error. The record reveals that defendant made no request for a protective order or other relief that might have kept the identities of his witnesses confidential until they were summoned to court. (See Millaud v. Superior Court (1986) 182 Cal. App.3d 471, 476 [227 Cal. Rptr. 222]; Rosato v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal. App.3d 190, 205-207 [124 Cal. Rptr. 427].) Instead, defendant's first and only complaint about these witnesses was a motion to expedite their return to Sierra County because they were being harassed in the San Joaquin County jail. The declaration of defense counsel supporting that motion stated in part that the witnesses have been cooperative and at our request have talked to the prosecution, after the prosecution independently identified who those witnesses were, apparently after a removal order was served on them.... (Italics added.) Having thus made no attempt to deny the prosecution access to his witnesses, defendant is in no position to complain that it interviewed them. Moreover, defendant supplies no evidence of any prejudice from the prosecution interviews. The prosecution did not rely on the witnesses to establish or bolster its case; they were called by the defense to impeach Barrett's testimony. Nothing in the record suggests prosecution interviews of these witnesses resulted in any involuntary or coerced testimony, or otherwise deprived defendant of his opportunity to present a defense. (37) (See fn. 10.) Again, we find no reversible error. [10]