Opinion ID: 2633370
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Delivering an inadequate closing argument

Text: To the extent defendant argues counsel presented an inadequate, minimalist closing argument in which she dehumanized him rather than portraying him as a person with love for his mother and as a person who had endured a life . . . marked by intense pain and suffering, we reject the claim. Defense counsel's description of defendant as a madman lacking all impulse controls was clearly an attempt to convince the jury to consider expert evidence presented at the sanity phase as mitigating under section 190.3, factors (d) and (h). As we explained in People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 634-635, 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 390, 863 P.2d 635: 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. Although defense counsel's argument in this case appears to have been somewhat lacking in clarity, not to mention eloquence, we are not persuaded that it fell below the standard of reasonably competent representation or that there is a reasonable probability that a better presentation would have resulted in a more favorable penalty verdict. Here also we find counsel's closing argument, though brief, did not fall below the standard of reasonably competent representation, and we find no reasonable probability exists that a better argument would have convinced the jury to vote for life over death. In sum, we conclude defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective at the penalty phase for failing to present additional mitigating evidence, for failing to request second counsel, or for presenting what defendant characterizes as a unreasonably minimalist closing argument.