Opinion ID: 1127477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Prediction of Defense Evidence

Text: Defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly predicted both that defendant would testify, thereby setting the stage for a negative inference if [defendant] exercised his constitutional right to refrain from testifying, and the defense defendant would present, in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent, and his right to due process, a fair trial, the assistance of counsel, and a reliable and nonarbitrary penalty determination. Defendant waived this argument by failing to object. ( People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1072.) It is also meritless. The prosecutor's statements were no more than fair comment on what he anticipated would be defense strategy and the evidence adduced at trial; there is no reasonable likelihood that the jurors would have construed the statements as impermissible comment on defendant's failure to testify. ( People v. Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 662-663; Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [14 L.Ed.2d 106, 85 S.Ct. 1229].) Moreover, the challenged statements by defendant that the prosecutor referred to in his opening statement were introduced through the testimony of the police officer who interrogated defendant. Nor, contrary to defendant's assertion, did the prosecutor's statements shift any burden of proof to the defense, or present the prosecutor as having knowledge of special facts, thus improperly inviting reliance on his views instead of on the evidence. Defendant also asserts that the prosecutor improperly argued that the reason defendant felt free to lie [on the stand] was because he had learned to murder his victims so that they couldn't contradict him. Once again, defendant waived this argument by failing to object. ( People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1072.) It is also meritless. The prosecutor stated: You will hear of a few of the other lies that Mr. Davenport will tell the police, that did not check out. The evidence is going to show that really what happened is Mr. Davenport learned an invaluable lesson about five years before this incident. The evidence is going to show that Mr. Davenport had another victim who lived to identify him. Nothing in this statement constitutes a prediction that defendant would testify, much less a prediction that he would perjure himself. Rather, the prosecutor's statement simply and properly referred to what he expected the evidence to show.