Opinion ID: 1394852
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appeal and Initial Habeas Corpus Petitions

Text: On appeal petitioner raised several contentions. He claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in refusing to grant immunity to Riley, Gross, and Wallace. He also claimed that prosecutor Pippin engaged in prejudicial misconduct on several occasions. Specifically, he complained that Pippin improperly attempted to link him to the Mafia in his examination of Deputy District Attorney Hayes, in his comments in closing argument referring to The Godfather, and in his remarks in closing argument attempting to analogize the testimony of Powell to the testimony of Jimmy Fratianno. Petitioner also complained that by arresting Aguilar when and where it did the prosecution interfered with his right to present the testimony that Riley, Gross, and Wallace would otherwise have given. On the eve of oral argument, petitioner filed in the Court of Appeal a petition for writ of habeas corpus together with a motion to consolidate the appeal and the habeas proceeding. He rested his claim to habeas corpus relief on two grounds among others. The first was that the prosecution interfered with his constitutional right to present the testimony of witnesses at trial. He alleged, in substance, that the prosecution intimidated Riley, Wallace, and Gross and thereby drove them from the stand. The second ground was the existence of evidence that was newly discovered and not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, which undermined the entire prosecution case. He alleged that one Wallace Jackson would testify that with Eugene Wallace's help Powell fabricated the story implicating him in the Crake murder, and that Powell received the gun not from petitioner but from Aguilar. In support of his allegations petitioner attached numerous exhibits, including declarations of Riley, Wallace, Gross, and Jackson. The exhibits also included official documents purporting to show the existence of inducements that the prosecution offered Powell and Jarrett for their testimony. After consolidating the appeal and the habeas corpus proceeding, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and denied the writ. ( People v. Martin (1983) 150 Cal. App.3d 148 [197 Cal. Rptr. 655].) As to the contentions on appeal the Court of Appeal held that prosecutor Pippin did not engage in prejudicial misconduct. Specifically, with regard to his apparent attempt to link petitioner with the Mafia in his examination of Deputy District Attorney Hayes, the court observed that on defense objection the question and answer were stricken, the prosecutor was admonished, and the jury was instructed not to consider material stricken from the record, and then concluded: We assume the jury understood and applied this instruction. ( Id. at p. 166.) On Pippin's reference in closing argument to The Godfather, the court reasoned, Even though the illustration was unnecessary and may have been offered in bad faith, it does not amount to a dishonest act or an intent to persuade the jury by deceptive, reprehensible means. [Citation.] Furthermore, in order to preserve this argument on appeal an objection must be made when the comment is made in order to give the trial judge an opportunity to cure any harm caused by the comment. [Citation.] No such objection was made here and an admonishment could have cured any potential prejudicial effect of the illustration. ( Id. at pp. 166-167.) As to Pippin's comment in closing argument attempting to analogize the testimony of Powell to that of Jimmy Fratianno, the court stated: This incomplete analogy was abandoned after a bench conference and this limited comment could not in any way have affected the verdict.... ( Id. at p. 167.) The Court of Appeal also held that the prosecution did not interfere with petitioner's right to present the testimony of Riley, Wallace, and Gross. In this case there is no offer of proof nor [ sic ] evidence the witnesses' decision to not testify was based on any conduct attributable to the state.... Without conduct attributable to the prosecution there cannot be any wilful suppression of evidence. ( Ibid. ) As to the habeas corpus petition, the Court of Appeal held that petitioner's claim that the prosecution interfered with his right to present the testimony of Riley, Wallace, and Gross ha[d] been dispensed with on the merits in the opinion on appeal. [Citation.] A potential witness' assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is not conduct attributable to the prosecution. ( Id. at p. 168.) [2] The Court of Appeal also held that prosecutor Pippin had indeed suppress[ed] ... substantial material evidence concerning the credibility of chief witnesses: Powell and Jarrett had been offered inducements for testimony; not only had the prosecutor failed to disclose the fact, but he also failed to correct the witnesses' misleading testimony denying promises of lenient treatment, and even argued that There is no evidence that [Powell] was given any kind of deal for his testimony. ( Id. at p. 169.) But Pippin's misconduct, the court concluded, was not prejudicial: We are satisfied that had the jury known the witnesses had been promised more lenient treatment in exchange for their cooperation, it would not have affected the verdict. ( Ibid. ) Finally, the Court of Appeal held that petitioner's newly discovered-evidence claim failed. None of the information supplied by Jackson's declaration constitutes evidence undiscoverable before trial. Both Jackson's and Wallace's declarations state they were cellmates along with Richard Tiebout and Powell during the defense investigation. The defense investigator interviewed Wallace and Tiebout and could just have [ sic ] easily interviewed Jackson. No new evidence which would have undermined the prosecutor's case is presented and the potential witness was discoverable before trial. ( Id. at p. 170.) Petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus in this court. In that petition he made allegations, advanced arguments, and presented exhibits substantially similar to those of his petition to the Court of Appeal, but with a number of additions. The petition was denied.