Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preparation and presentation of defense evidence

Text: Defendant contends that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a continuance prior to the commencement of the penalty phase so as to be able to prepare their witnesses, inasmuch as they had elected to present the defense evidence in mitigation before the prosecution's presentation of evidence. In fact, the defense requested and received a one-day continuance in which to prepare defendant for his testimony. The record does not demonstrate that defense counsel lacked adequate time to prepare this or any other witness. Defendant asserts that, as a result of defense counsel's failure to prepare him for his testimony, he made damaging statements. He admitted that he had a drinking problem, had had sexual encounters with men in prison, had been a pimp for drag queens, had learned the revolutionary stage from Huey Newton in prison, and could not recall the circumstances of Ella Mae Fellows's death. Defendant also implied that Police Officers Osmond and Lane were to blame for the shootout because they did not identify themselves; defendant volunteered that he had struck his former wife, and he explained he did not testify at the guilt phase because he did not think the jury would believe Cebreros's testimony. The record does not reflect the nature of defense counsel's preparation of defendant, and therefore we cannot determine that any of this testimony was the result of defendant's lack of preparation. ( People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 701, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640.) In addition, because even the most carefully prepared witness may give a surprise answer, we may not hold defense counsel responsible for the potentially damaging responses furnished by a defendant or another witness. ( People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1213-1214, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301.) Defendant also asserts that his counsel's failure to prepare him adequately subjected him to devastating cross-examination, permitting the prosecutor to establish through defendant's own testimony, among other negative facts, that while in prison defendant had incurred a number of infractions, had been fired as a clerk after several weeks, and had used a wheelchair after it no longer was medically necessary. Similarly, the prosecutor was permitted to establish that defendant possessed magazines and photographs with homosexual themes despite having stated he was not homosexual, indicated that his mind was clear at the time of the murder of Fellows despite his testimony on direct examination that he could not remember that event, denied killing Fellows, and stated that a psychiatrist who interviewed him following that murder had made misrepresentations in the ensuing written reports. The circumstance that negative facts were elicited during cross-examination does not demonstrate that defense counsel inadequately prepared defendant to testify. Nothing in the record suggests defendant did not intend to describe detailed aspects of his behavior; rather, based upon the lengthy account he gave of his life and feelings, especially while in prison, the description appears to have been a tactical decision. On the basis of the present record, we cannot say that trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation in permitting defendant to testify to his life history, including his lengthy stays in prison, despite the knowledge that certain damaging details would be elicited during the prosecutor's cross-examination. Defendant contends that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to produce documentary evidence or testimony from other witnesses to substantiate defendant's testimony. He asserts that defense counsel should have introduced records of medical procedures, attempts to obtain psychiatric assistance, employment and volunteer work, and efforts to improve defendant's recollection of the Fellows murder. Defense counsel assertedly also should have produced witnesses present at the time of defendant's shootout with the police officers. Defendant has not established that such records exist or were available to counsel, or that such witnesses could be located, and the record does not reveal defense counsel's reasons for not introducing such evidence, assuming it was available. Defendant asserts that defense counsel failed to introduce into evidence six letters of commendation from his prison employers. When defense counsel inquired of a parole officer familiar with defendant's records memorializing his conduct in prison, the parole officer testified concerning the laudatory reports contained in defendant's records. Although the trial court denied defense counsel's request that every one of these letters be admitted, several of the letters of commendation were included within another exhibit. Accordingly, defendant has not demonstrated deficient performance in representation below an objective standard of reasonableness, nor has prejudice been established. ( People v. Lucero, supra, 23 Cal.4th 692, 728, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871, 3 P.3d 248.) Defendant asserts that defense counsel were ineffective both because they selected witnesses to testify on defendant's behalf (defendant's mother, a family friend, and a representative from the temporary employment agency) who did not effectively present evidence in mitigation, and because counsel did not offer documentation in support of their testimony. These witnesses, especially defendant's mother, offered considerable testimony describing circumstances in mitigation. The circumstance that these witnesses were impeached in some respects with other evidence does not suggest defense counsel were ineffective in offering their testimony or in preparing them to testify. These witnesses may have been the best available to the defense. We cannot conclude there was deficient performance, much less prejudice, upon the record before us. ( People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th 622, 735, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640.) Defendant contends that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present the testimony of psychiatric experts. The record discloses that two psychiatrists met with defendant prior to the penalty phase. The record does not reflect what evidence might have been presented as a result of such examination, and we are therefore unable to infer anything about its existence, probative force, or the probable consequences at trial, had such evidence been presented. ( People v. Wash, supra, 6 Cal.4th 215, 269, 24 Cal. Rptr.2d 421, 861 P.2d 1107; see People v. Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1108, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867, 864 P.2d 40.) Defendant has not established that he received ineffective assistance. ( People v. Wash, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 269, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 421, 861 P.2d 1107.)