Opinion ID: 2575997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged interference with witness preparation

Text: Defense counsel obtained court orders directing that defendant's two brothers, Hank and Buford Kennedy, be transferred from the facilities in which they were then incarcerated to the Colusa County jail so they could testify on November 17, 1993, at 9:00 a.m., as defense witnesses at the penalty phase of defendant's trial. At 8:55 a.m. on that date, defense counsel advised the court in chambers that he was informed the night before that the two brothers were not available and that the jail staff was unable to tell counsel where the witnesses were. When defense counsel indicated his desire to speak to the two brothers before they testified, the court assured counsel, You'll have that right, no question. The prosecutor then mentioned that the two brothers were not going to be housed at the Colusa County jail because of security concerns. Defense counsel responded that he had not expected that he wouldn't be able to even see them until after the trial started. The court assured defense counsel he would have the time. The parties then addressed the admissibility of a videotape and certain concerns by defendant that some defense witnesses might assert their constitutional right to not incriminate themselves. When the discussion returned to the availability of defendant's two brothers as witnesses, the prosecutor said that he would make a telephone call at the next break to find out when defendant's two incarcerated brothers would arrive at the Colusa County jail, and make arrangements for them to meet with defense counsel. The court told defense counsel to let the court know if there were any problems, adding that the court would make sure you see `em at a reasonable time and place. The prosecutor later informed the trial court that defendant's two incarcerated brothers would be arriving at the Colusa County jail later that morning, one at 10:30 and the other at 11:30, and that defense counsel would be given ample time to interview them. When the court told defense counsel rest assured that this Court will see that the proceedings afford you ample opportunity to interview those two witnesses, defense counsel said that the issues raised this morning then are all resolved as far as we're concerned. The parties and the court then proceeded to deal with the admissibility of a videotape and a matter concerning a juror. After the prosecution completed its opening statement to the jury, defense counsel informed the court, because of the issues we raised this morning we prefer to reserve our right to make an opening statement at the opening of our case. After the prosecution presented its penalty phase witnesses, the prosecutor told the court and defense counsel that defendant's two brothers had arrived at the jail. At defense counsel's request, the court extended the noon recess to 1:30 p.m. At 1:25 p.m. the court and counsel met again in chambers. Defense counsel mentioned he had been unable to interview defendant's two brothers at the jail because Department of Corrections staff told him that he could not meet with defendant and the latter's two brothers at the same time and that any conversations would have to be conducted over the jail phones, which were monitored. Arrangements were then made for the three Kennedy brothers to be in adjoining cells; defense counsel would be outside the cells in the presence of an officer who was not to communicate with the prosecution. The court then ordered a recess and asked the jurors to return at 3:00 p.m. When the court reconvened at 3:00 p.m., the prosecution rested and a discussion ensued at a sidebar conference whether Buford Kennedy, defendant's incarcerated brother, would testify wearing prison clothes and in shackles. The prosecutor mentioned the safety concerns expressed by a Department of Corrections officer, described Buford as damn near 5150 (a reference to a person being dangerous or gravely disabled within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150), and said that his appearance wouldn't even look good in a three-piece suit because of ink all over his face, tattoo all over his face. . . . Defense counsel suggested that Buford Kennedy testify in prison clothes with handcuffs, but that Hank Kennedy testify in prison clothes without physical restraints. The defense then called Buford Kennedy as a witness. Based on the events described above, defendant contends that court error here combined with prosecutorial misconduct to deprive him of his right to access to witnesses and to present a defense. Not so. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the circumstances surrounding his trial counsel's access to defendant's incarcerated brothers, Buford and Hank Kennedy, did not compel counsel to waive his opening statement at the beginning of the proceeding. As mentioned earlier, defense counsel expressed a preference to defer an opening statement to the opening of our case. This, counsel said, was prompted by the issues we raised this morning, a reference to issues relating to the possible exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination by potential defense witnesses John Hancock and Richard Kiyoka. Although defense counsel initially expressed concern about the adequacy of access to the two jailed brothers, that issue was later resolved by the trial court, and defense counsel so stated in court, as we mentioned earlier. We also reject defendant's claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by denying defense counsel sufficient time to address concerns relating to defense witness Buford Kennedy's mental issues. The record discloses that defense counsel had an opportunity to meet with Buford and Hank Kennedy during the court recess from 1:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., that defense counsel did not express a need to postpone Buford's testimony, and that Buford's testimony was coherent and lucid. Nor is there any merit to the claim that defendant's rights were violated because he was not allowed to speak to his two brothers either personally or through his attorney privately. The arrangements made and agreed to by the parties did not preclude defendant from speaking privately to either of defendant's brothers.