Opinion ID: 1433861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Admission of defendant's guilt in closing argument

Text: Defendant asserts defense counsel was ineffective for acknowledging some culpability on defendant's part in closing argument: There is no doubt that the events that happened on Labor Day weekend with my client has some liability for [sic], some responsibility for. We are not going to say not guilty on all counts. That is just not what happened. We find no incompetence in these remarks. Given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, including the testimony of two eyewitnesses,. the concession appears to be a reasonable trial tactic by which counsel could urge the jury to return verdicts on the lesser included offenses of second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. Since counsel could also reasonably anticipate having to conduct a penalty phase, it also allowed him to preserve his credibility in arguing mitigation. (See, e.g., People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 661, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351.) In resolving these claims, we must `assess counsel's overall performance throughout the case' [citation], evaluating it `from counsel's perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances. [Citation.]' [Citation.] ( Ibid. ) Moreover, when read in context, the argument in no respect reflects a breakdown of the adversarial process. (See, e.g., In re Visciotti (1996) 14 Cal.4th 325, 362-366, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 801, 926 P.2d 987 (dis. opn. of Brown, J.).) Counsel noted discrepancies between the testimony of Wilson and Ramirez, suggested the jury could infer Ramirez was more involved in the crimes than claimed, and pointed to other evidence defendant was guilty of less than first degree murder. The multiple-murder special circumstance would be triggered even if the jury found only one of the killings was first degree murder (ง 190.2, subd. (a)(3)); therefore, counsel reasonably focused his guilt phase argument on reducing that possibility. Conceding some measure of culpability was a valid tactical choice under these restrictive circumstances.