Opinion ID: 2581358
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impugning integrity of defense counsel

Text: In closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor analogized defense counsel to political spin doctorsthat is, partisan political operatives who seek to cast the performance of their candidate in the most positive lightthereby suggesting the defense put an unfair spin on the evidence. Defendant did not object at trial, and thus he has forfeited any claim of error. The prosecutor was discussing defendant's mother's testimony when he made the comment about which defendant now complains. Defendant's mother testified to an episode during defendant's childhood when, after the couple's divorce, defendant's father took defendant from a birthday party without her permission. The prosecutor described it as the kidnapping that the defense has put that heavy spin on. The defense objected to the characterization, describing it as derogatory and demeaning, but the trial court overruled the objection stating, [I]t's hyperbole. The prosecutor proceeded to develop the theme that defendant's mother was overstating the domestic violence and dislocation that defendant suffered as a child. Defendant objected to the prosecutor's heavy spin comment, although not on the basis that he now advances on appeal, which is that it denigrated the integrity of defense counsel. As mentioned earlier, a prosecutor commits misconduct by impugning the integrity of defense counsel. ( People v. Cash, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 732, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 545, 50 P.3d 332; People v. Bemore, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 846, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 996 P.2d 1152.) Nonetheless, we allow prosecutors wide latitude in penalty phase argument, so long as the beliefs they express are based on the evidence presented. ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 463, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408, 966 P.2d 442.) Here, there was evidence that, although defendant's mother was distressed when his father took defendant, then a young boy, from a family birthday party without her permission, she resolved the matter by retrieving the boy, and sending him to Texas to live with her mother. The disparity between that evidence and its characterization at trial as a kidnapping was a legitimate subject of prosecutorial comment. In closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor commented on the fees paid to the defense mental health expert witness, stating, for 124 hours at $225 per hour, Dr. Wilkinson comes up with something that excuses this man's responsibility. That comment, defendant claims, implied that Dr. Wilkinson gave false testimony for a fee, thereby impugning defense counsel's integrity for having, in effect, bought the expert's testimony. Because of his failure to object at trial, defendant has forfeited the claim. ( People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 858, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) In any event, although counsel may not denigrate the integrity of opposing counsel, an attorney is free to argue that the opinions of paid expert witnesses may be biased. ( People v. Arias, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 162, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 913 P.2d 980.)