Opinion ID: 1277356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Seek Exclusion of the Jail house Informant's Testimony

Text: As noted, Randy Gresham, a jailhouse informant, testified for the prosecution. When defendant was arrested, Gresham was a convicted felon awaiting trial in Riverside County. Shortly after defendant's arrest, Gresham was housed in the same county jail cell as defendant. During the time the two were cellmates, defendant made a number of damaging admissions to Gresham regarding the murder of Shelah. Gresham subsequently conveyed this information to law enforcement authorities, who offered Gresham a five-year reduction in his prison sentence if he testified against defendant. Gresham did so. Defendant contends that Gresham was a government agent employed to elicit incriminating information from defendant. (See Maine v. Moulton (1985) 474 U.S. 159, 173, 106 S.Ct. 477, 88 L.Ed.2d 481.) He further contends that the manner in which the prosecution procured Gresham's testimony violated defendant's constitutional rights to counsel, a fair trial, due process of law, fundamental fairness, and a fair and reliable penalty determination. (See Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246; Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215.) In view of Gresham's status, defendant contends that his trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to challenge the admission of Gresham's testimony under Massiah and Brady. We reject defendant's contention that his trial counsel performed deficiently in not seeking to exclude Gresham's testimony, because the record before us does not reveal that counsel lacked a tactical basis for declining to contest the admission of this testimony, and counsel's decision was not one for which there could be no satisfactory explanation. (See People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th 264, 266, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134; People v. Wilson, supra, 3 Cal.4th 926, 936, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212; People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d 572, 581, 189 Cal.Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144.) We also observe that counsel's cross-examination of Gresham was zealous and thorough. Counsel sought to undermine Gresham's credibility by focusing upon Gresham's opportunism in testifying against defendant. Defendant's related contention that Gresham acted as a government agent similarly is unsupported by the record on appeal. Gresham testified that defendant made his admissions before Gresham spoke with law enforcement officers regarding the possibility of trading testimony against defendant for a reduction in Gresham's prison sentence. After disclosing his information to police investigators, Gresham immediately was moved into a protective-custody cell, and defendant no longer spoke to him regarding the case. On these facts, a reasonably competent defense attorney could have concluded that there existed no obligation to challenge Gresham's testimony on the ground that defendant's admissions had been improperly obtained. Based upon the record before us, we conclude that defendant has failed to establish that counsel's performance in addressing the damaging nature of Gresham's testimony was constitutionally deficient.