California Criminal Lawyer Blog

Why did the overworked California Supreme Court grant review on this case? it's because they just couldn't ber that the Court of APpeal reversed a convcition for Prosecutorial Misconduct. So, they granted review to protect the prosecutor.

So, here's what happened. The Cort of Appeal reversed the defendant's convcition because of prosecutorial misconduct.

The California Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeal, meaning they affirm the conviction. They restate well-settled appellate rules governing prosecutorial misconduct.

But what important issues did this case present that they wanted to resolve? Which important issues did they in fact resolve? None. The Supremes find that the DA didn't improperly urge
the jury to convict through a guilt by association argument (the defendant is a Catholic priest, convicted of child molestation).

The Supremes find that the DA didn't ask the jurors to stand in the shoes of the victims. They do have to admit that the DA said, "I think his client is guilty." This violates the ban against expressions by the prosecutor of belief in the defendant's guilt. But the Supremes assure us that in context this referred to the evidence presented, not some evidence the DA had that
the jury didn't.

Of course, this is still misconduct, isn't it? Yes. But we must send the message to the prosecutors that the ends DO justify the means; that you CAN commit miscondcut if the case warrant it. Right?

Of course, the Supremes say that any error was waived, and the failure to object wasn't
ineffective, since there might have been valid tactical reasons not to do so.

Remind me again, why did they bother with this case? Oh right, they are so overwhelmed with work that they want to dump death cases on the Court of Appeal.

People v. Lopez; 2008 DJ DAR 1393; DJ, 1/29/08; Cal. Supremes