Opinion ID: 2612406
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Use of false testimony.

Text: (9) Defendant asserts the prosecutor knowingly made use of false testimony at the guilt phase by allowing jailhouse informant Acker to testify untruthfully that he didn't like gangs and that he merely desired a transfer to an out-of-state prison in return for his testimony. Defendant points to evidence elicited at the second penalty trial that Acker was a gang member. Defendant also stresses Acker's penalty phase admission that an identifying tattoo had recently been removed from his back in prison. Defendant argues that the tattoo removal shows Acker was promised a change of identity in return for his testimony, contrary to Acker's insistence that he received no definite promises or benefits. The record discloses no material discrepancy in Acker's testimony. Acker's gang membership was never established. At the penalty phase, defense witness Ybarra testified Acker had admitted membership in the Paramount gang, but Acker consistently denied it. He claimed his Paramount tattoo referred only to his hometown. Thus, we cannot assume on this record that Acker lied about the matter, or that the prosecution countenanced lying. Similarly, the record of the second penalty trial does not show Acker lied at the guilt phase about benefits promised or received for his testimony. Although Acker had the Paramount tattoo removed, apparently to protect his identity, no proof was made that this act was done by the authorities in return for his testimony in defendant's case. Even if the authorities did assist in the tattoo removal for purposes of protecting Acker's identity, this was but a logical extension of the protective prison transfer he had always acknowledged he hoped to receive. Moreover, any inference that Acker had received benefits for his cooperation in this and other cases by the time of the second penalty trial does not establish that his contrary guilt phase testimony was false when given. [8] In any event, considering the information the jurors already had about Acker, additional revelations that he might be a gang member, and might have accepted protective help from the authorities, would not likely have lessened his credibility in their eyes to any substantial degree. No basis for reversal appears.