Opinion ID: 1426947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Defense counsel's discussion of defense witnesses.

Text: In closing argument, responding to remarks by the prosecution, Wessel conceded that defense witnesses Armijo and Hill provided accounts of the fight which differed in some respects. He went on: If these two individuals were going to concoct a story, I submit to you that the story would have been perfect in every respect, and not such an obvious error in their stories. I have no explanation as to why their stories are not consistent, other than the fact that this was two years ago. These men did not put down in written reports as to what they saw. And that they did their best to try to recall what happened. Now, you all had an opportunity to view Donald Hill. There's no question about the fact that Donald Hill is an obnoxious fellow. And we're not asking you to like our witnesses . . . . We are stuck with the witnesses that were there on the night in question. (Emphasis added.) Quoting only the emphasized words, Leonard contends that Wessel discredited his own witnesses; however, in context the remarks are reasonable and not prejudicial to Leonard. Leonard also contends that Wessel attacked the credibility of Armijo on redirect examination; however, the record shows that Wessel was attempting in a reasonable and competent way to rehabilitate Armijo after the prosecution's cross-examination.