Opinion ID: 2507343
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Closing and rebuttal argument

Text: During closing argument, the DPA, over the objections of the deputy public defender [hereinafter, defense counsel or DPD], commented on Lopez's post-arrest silence: [DPA:] Again, consult your own reason and common sense, you come up with a story, you know, that you think might work. []Oh, I cannot find it[;] it's my friend's car.[] Yeah, he does say that. Okay. Does he say anything more? Bear in mind within minutes he's out of that car in cuffs being arrested for driving that stolen car[,] right? Did he say anything more? The cop told you he didn't say what his friend's name was, didn't say the address or didn't say anything about the details, didn't say nothing. Again, you consult your own reason and common sense about how people normally act. A person is stopped in a stolen car and he really is innocent, what's the first thing he's going to do? []Hey, wait a minute, wait a minute ÔÇö [] [DPD]: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I'm going to object[,] commenting on the defendant's right to remain silent. [DPA]: It's in evidence, Your Honor. [Court]: Overruled. You may continue. [DPA]: []Wait a minute, wait a minute, I got it from my friend Greg Ramba, he lives in Makakilo, he fixes cars, he told me I could drive it, wait, wait, wait.[] Again, think, you're all adults here, you know how people react to things. That's what an innocent person would do[;] he didn't do anything like that. He got cuffed, he got arrested, he got taken away. Why? Because he got caught red-handed and he knew it. That's why. Defense counsel responded in his closing argument: [DPD]:. . . . [Lopez] was telling you the truth, he was telling you the truth. You know, . . . [Lopez's] actions on . . . the day he was arrested matter, too. . . . He doesn't know the car is stolen, he doesn't know there's anything wrong with the car, you know. He does tell the police it's his friend's car. And, you know, the officer himself says[, W]ell, I can't remember if I asked him anything more about the friend.[] So, you know, [the DPA] is making a big deal about [Lopez] not saying[, M]y friend is this, he lives there, he lives there.[] We don't know if he did or he didn't[;] the officer himself doesn't know. [Lopez's] actions on that day matter. On rebuttal, the DPA replied: [DPA]: Well, the officer didn't ask him, that's why he didn't say anything about the friend's name, where he could be found, the details of the car, et cetera. Again, use your common sense. The [prosecution's] position is that the officer wouldn't need to ask[;] an innocent person would just start talking and try to convince the person arresting him that he didn't do it and here's why. I mean, don't you think [that the first thing] a reasonable person would have said [is], . . . []I got it from my friend, Greg Ramba, brah, go talk to him, he'll tell you[]? Nothing like that. In addition, during closing argument, the DPA, over defense counsel's objections, commented on Lopez's failure to call Ramba during trial: [DPA:] What the defense is going to argue is he didn't know, he didn't really know because he didn't know the car was stolen and he thought his friend Greg gave him permission to drive the car. Okay. So let's look more closely at that because that's really sort of the nub of this case. All right? First of all, bear in mind trials are all about evidence, yeah, evidence. What's the evidence for that? [Lopez's] testimony. That's it, that's all you have. [DPD]: Objection, Your Honor, burden shifting. [Court]: Overruled. [DPA]: All you have on this, his testimony that he borrowed the car, that he didn't know it was stolen, et cetera. There's not one single bit of corroboration for what he told you in this case, not a single bit. [DPD]: Same objection, Your Honor. [Court]: Overruled. During rebuttal argument, the DPA, again over defense counsel's objections, returned to the same theme: [DPA]: And, by the way, this Greg Ramba ÔÇö now it's true, you know, the defense doesn't have a burden, he didn't have to testify, he doesn't have to call witnesses. But he has a right to do so and he can put on any evidence he wants. As I said, the evidence for his story is just that, his story. Zero corroboration. Wouldn't you have liked to have heard from Greg? [DPD]: Objection, Your Honor, again burden shifting. [Court]: Overruled. [DPA]: Wouldn't you have liked to have heard from Greg Ramba? He says he's a local boy, lives [in] Makakilo with his family. You know, would it have been so hard to get him . . . into court to tell you guys[, Y]eah I lent him the car, I told him it was okay, and I neva know it was stolen either[]? He himself said Greg is law abiding, honest, his friend. You know, don't you think his friend would come in? And all he would have to say is[, Y]eah, I lent him the car.[] I would probably vote not guilty maybe at that point.[ [4] ] Why didn't he do that? I suggest to you one of two possibilities: There is no Greg Ramba or Greg Ramba would have come in here if he called him and said something very different from what he would have wanted Greg to say. [DPD]: Objection, Your Honor, that calls for speculation. [Court]: Overruled.