Opinion ID: 2590700
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: New information about May 6, 1987 meeting

Text: Asserting that Loar was more of a police agent than was suspected, defendant emphasizes that his original trial counsel did not know that Loar met with Detectives Collette and Miller [8] on May 6, 1987. Defendant points to a declaration by Forest Elliott, Jr., an attorney who represented both defendant and Loar at some point. The parties discussed the contents of this declaration in the retrial. In his declaration, Elliott claimed that on May 6, 1987 he was representing Loar in a matter at a Long Beach courthouse. Detectives Collette and Miller were at the courthouse on that date, waiting for Loar. Loar voluntarily spoke to the detectives alone. Elliott's declaration did not assert he heard what Loar and the detectives talked about, or that Loar or anyone else told him what was discussed in that conversation. However, Elliott stated he now understands why Loar wanted to talk to the detectives; Elliott posited that Loar testified against defendant and collud[ed] with Prosecutor Hodgman and Judge Sheldon to obtain an illegal reduction in sentence to `time served' (none of which was served in a state prison). Defendant argues it is significant that Loar met with these detectives at this time because Loar had testified he had the jailhouse conversation with defendant in the late summer to early fall of 1987. He asserts that Loar should have been questioned about this earlier meeting with detectives because an inquiry into this area was crucial to assessing credibility, for it brings up the question of whether Mr. Loar was attempting to elicit information as a police agent. Even if the prosecution or detectives did not promise Loar anything in exchange for his testimony, defendant claims the issue is Loar's expectation of what benefits he would receive. We disagree. Contrary to defendant's contention, this information of a May 6, 1987 meeting between Loar and detectives, which was not disclosed at the first trial, does not undermine the reliability of Loar's testimony. As the Attorney General points out, Elliott's declaration only shows that Loar may have met with Detectives Collette and Miller on May 6, 1987. Nothing suggests that this conversation between Loar and the detectives was about defendant, as opposed to any other matter. Moreover, Loar's testimony revealed that he previously cooperated as an informant with at least two district attorney's offices over the years. Finally, Loar's prior testimony revealed that he was โ at the time he testified โ in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff for violating probation arising from a fraud conviction, and that he had previously been convicted of burglary and possession of heroin with the intent to sell. The evidence of Loar's prior convictions would have already exposed his credibility to impeachment. ( People v. Morris, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 34, 249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843; see Evid.Code, ง 788; CALJIC No. 2.20.) Given the evidence of Loar's prior cooperation with law enforcement, the evidence of Loar's prior convictions, and the lack of any evidence that the May 6, 1987 meeting was about defendant, we conclude that had the first jury known about the meeting, this would not have significantly altered the jury's view of Loar's credibility.