Opinion ID: 2594735
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury's Responsibility for Death Penalty Decision

Text: In her closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor contrasted defendant's legal rights against defendant's failure to recognize any of the rights of Mary Frances Litovich. The prosecutor noted that defendant had the right to counsel, to a jury trial, to being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to appellate review to see that we don't make any mistakes on the law and the procedure in this case. Seizing on the prosecution's passing reference to appellate court review, defendant argues the prosecution violated the constitutional prohibition against leading the sentencing jury to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere. ( Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320, 328-329, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231.) Not so. The prosecutor very briefly referred to appellate court review as she was describing the various legal rights to which defendant was entitled (see People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 554, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 751, 905 P.2d 420 [arguments are reviewed in context]); she mentioned appellate review only in the context of legal and procedural mistakes, and she then reminded the jury of the duty of each of its members to come to a personal decision. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that the prosecutor's passing reference to appellate review led the jury to believe that it was relieved of responsibility for the verdict. ( People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 211-212, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 825 P.2d 781; Jeffries v. Blodgett (9th Cir.1993) 5 F.3d 1180, 1192.)