Opinion ID: 2517324
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Prosecutor's Reference to the Threat in Closing

Text: Regarding James's testimony, defense counsel argued as follows in his closing: He was threatened to such an extent that the People want you to believe him, and that's why he changed his testimony. Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that he wouldn't say anything before the testimony or he wouldn't want these people out of the courtroom? In her rebuttal, the prosecutor responded that it was precisely because he was threatened that James had said nothing before he testified: The exact thing about threats is they scare you. And you don't necessarily run and tell on the person who just threatened you because they threatened you. And you don't want to make them any madder. So instead you come in and try to appease them. You come in and say I don't remember. And I might have made that part up. As they are sitting here in the audience staring at him, he is back-pedaling big time.... But what we know is true is his prior statement, what he said to the police, what you hear on the tape when no one was glaring at him and no one had threatened him and the defendant wasn't sitting there looking at him. Defendant, while refraining from making a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, contends the prosecutor's reference to his presence and the threat against James in the same sentence undermined the court's limiting instruction, and exacerbated the prejudice created by the admission of the threat evidence. (6) Defense counsel made no objection or request for an admonition from the court, which could have reinforced the limiting instruction and mitigated any undue prejudice. His claim is thus barred on appeal. ( People v. Thornton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 391, 454 [61 Cal.Rptr.3d 461, 161 P.3d 3].) Defendant responds to the Attorney General's waiver argument by suggesting for the first time in his reply brief that the failure to object amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The argument is as meritless as it is belated. [D]eciding whether to object is inherently tactical, and the failure to object will rarely establish ineffective assistance. ( People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 502 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45, 40 P.3d 754].) Here, while requesting an admonition was one tactical option, counsel could also have decided that objecting would focus the jury's attention on the threat incident in ways that would not be helpful to the defense. The prosecutor's comment echoed her opening argument, where she made no mention of the threat but argued that James's taped statement was credible because it was made when the defendant wasn't in the room looking at him, other family members weren't in the audience looking at him. The jury would understand that, regardless of any threat, James would have been more willing to incriminate his relative in a private interview than in open court, in the presence of defendant and other family members. Any implication in her later comment that defendant may have been involved with the threat was remote enough that counsel could reasonably have opted to let it pass without objection.