Opinion ID: 2581010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Deliberate and repeated refusal to comply promptly with court orders, making frequent and dubious objections, and contesting objections before the jury

Text: Defendant asserts that the prosecutor engaged in chronic foot-dragging with respect to discovery and other court-ordered matters, was guilty of irritating, annoying, and disrespectful conduct, and contentiously argued objections before the jury. For example, defendant asserts that (i) on the eve of trial the prosecutor furnished defense counsel with more than 400 pages of previously undisclosed telephone records; (ii) failed to disclose addresses of prospective witnesses in a timely manner; (iii) repeatedly failed to disclose until each evening recess the identity of the next day's witnesses; (iv) asked, and then withdrew, a completely improper question concerning threats made by [defendant's] friends against Guillory while in jail; (v) frequently failed to show defense counsel writings or exhibits before handing them to witnesses; and (vi) frequently interrupted defense counsel's examination with frivolous or marginally meritorious objections, and then argued with defense counsel rather than awaiting a ruling by the court. Once again, because defendant failed to object at trial to any of these challenged comments or asserted actions, and because timely admonitions would have cured any harm, claims based upon these comments and alleged conduct may not now be asserted on appeal. ( Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.) Furthermore, on the merits, we find the cited passages, when viewed in the context of the surrounding testimony and circumstances, to be innocuous. Defense counsel did object at trial, on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, to two other matters of which he now complains  (i) the claim that the prosecutor, at the preliminary hearing, wrongfully withheld evidence of defendant's plot to keep Terry Guillory from testifying, and (ii) the claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by stating during cross-examination of Guillory that defense counsel's question concerning street talk was the most outrageous question I've ever heard and was contemptuous. But with regard to both circumstances, we previously have determined that no prejudice requiring reversal resulted (see ante, pts. II.D & II.M.3), and we reach the same conclusion in this context. The trial court observed that at various stages of the trial, both counsel failed to exhibit professional courtesies. The record, however, does not support defendant's suggestion that the resulting trial was fundamentally unfair or amounted to a denial of due process of law under the federal Constitution. ( Espinoza, supra, 3 Cal.4th 806, 820, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 682, 838 P.2d 204; DeChristoforo, supra, 416 U.S. 637, 642-643, 94 S.Ct. 1868.)