Opinion ID: 2594735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Effectiveness of Defense Counsel's Closing Argument

Text: Defendant characterizes his trial counsel's closing argument at the penalty phase as a travesty. He contends counsel's argument was disjointed, did not relate to defendant personally, and did not ask the jury to consider lingering doubt. Trial counsel's relatively brief closing argument, consisting of 16 pages of transcript, focused on racial prejudice in the imposition of the death penalty and on the death penalty not being imposed on certain serial killers whose conduct was arguably more heinous than defendant's. The argument included a response to several points the prosecution had raised in its closing argument, and it contained an emotional plea to the jury to spare defendant's life. As this court has observed, the effectiveness of an advocate's oral presentation is difficult to judge accurately from a written transcript, and the length of an argument is not a sound measure of its quality. ( People v. Cudjo, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 634-635, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 390, 863 P.2d 635.) We have reviewed defense counsel's closing argument to the jury and are not persuaded that the argument fell below the standard of reasonably competent representation. ( Ibid. )