Opinion ID: 2520047
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Intimidation of Potential Penalty Witnesses

Text: Through the testimony of Deputy Sheriffs Whipple and Shive, the prosecution introduced evidence that defendant attacked inmate Robinson. Robinson did not testify, but he was brought into the courtroom for identification purposes. In her closing argument, the prosecutor stated: It goes without saying that, in a custodial setting like county jail, and perhaps even more so, state prison, no one wants to be labeled a rat. No one wants to inform on anyone because the next time something happens to you, it will probably involve a lot more pain and suffering to you, a rat. [¶ ] ... [¶] Now, you remember that [defense counsel] asked Deputy Whipple about  asked him if Mr. Robinson would testify, and he said no, he didn't want to. Even the prison guards testified, and I think it was Officer Valentine, but I'm not really sure, testified that it's very common to have intimidation. The prosecutor continued: Now, let's talk about the stabbing of William Robinson. You saw him. He didn't want to testify. You saw how big and buffed out he was. Alfredo Valdez is nowhere near his size, but he stabbed him twice and he was causing him to back up in an intimidating fashion in front of deputies. Defendant contends this argument implied the reason Robinson did not testify was because defendant intimidated him. This was misconduct, defendant argues, because there was no evidence that defendant intimidated Robinson. We find no misconduct. The prosecutor never said or implied that defendant himself intimidated Robinson. She merely highlighted that inmates can be intimidated in prison and that an inmate would not want to be labeled a rat. Any inmate could consider Robinson a rat if it was disclosed that he testified against another inmate. With respect to the prosecutor's argument regarding Robinson's size, there was no misconduct. A fair reading of the argument reveals that the prosecutor intended to show that regardless of defendant's size, he could still pose a threat to other inmates, even those who are buffed out. Defendant also argues that the prosecution committed similar misconduct with respect to another witness, William Copeland. But he fails to cite any argument by the prosecution implying that defendant intimidated Copeland.