Opinion ID: 2584947
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remarks Concerning Defense Counsel

Text: Defendant also contends the prosecutor attacked the integrity of defense counsel during closing argument for (1) their hiring of Dr. Globus and (2) their putting a subtle little spin on things by attempting to shift responsibility for Schmiedt's death from defendant to the government. Even assuming these claims were preserved for review, we would find no misconduct. With regard to the first claim, defendant once again focuses on the portion of the closing argument where the prosecutor commented that Dr. Globus resigned from his job at the University of California, Davis and then remarked the doctor had found he can make a living working in court. [¶] There are people who will hire him to come in here and give these offhanded, glib opinions to try and make Richard Parson, who are just basically criminals, into the sort of person who has a brain problem that we should all feel sorry about. To the extent this argument can even be understood to refer to defense counsel, there was nothing inappropriate about it. ( People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 182 [[a]n argumentative reminder that defense counsel may have chosen Dr. Globus [for an expert opinion that was implausible but favorable to the defendant's case] is not equivalent to an insinuation that counsel suborned perjury or engaged in deception].) [16] As for the second claim, the prosecutor's argument stated in full: And I just couldn't believe it when I heard [defense counsel] suddenly suggesting that maybe the death of Theresa Schmiedt was the responsibility of Curt Ellingson of the United States Marshal's Office because they asked her to help them. [¶] Isn't that another just a subtle little spin on things? [¶] It's not Richard Parson's fault that he battered Theresa Schmiedt's head to smithereens, it's somehow the government's fault because they were asking her to help them. (Italics added.) Again, no misconduct appears. The prosecutor offered this argument after defense counsel made an argument that focused the jury's attention on the question of the government's role in the case. Noting the failure of the United States Marshal's Office to designate defendant as dangerous, defense counsel argued: I think it's important to ask what the government's role was in this because certainly, um, Deputy US Marshal Ellingson was in a position, and his office was in a position to know whether this was appropriate conduct, or an appropriate situation to put Ms. Schmiedt in, something that was appropriate to ask her to do. Thus, the subtle little spin comment was a fair response to defense counsel's argument implying that the government may have been at least partially at fault for what happened. (See People v. Cook, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 613 [prosecutorial reference to defense's heavy spin on the evidence was not misconduct].)