California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Jaspal, 234 Cal.App.3d 1446, 286 Cal.Rptr. 337 (Cal. App. 1991):
We first address whether a timely objection at trial on the ground that the prosecutor's comments constituted improper reference to appellant's right to remain silent would have cured the harm. We think not. After two sets of objections on other grounds, the trial court seemed determined to admit the evidence as an adoptive admission and the prosecution had hammered away at what had occurred at the extradition hearing to impeach appellant's credibility, claiming appellant had lied. Appellant was compelled to explain on redirect that he had not personally made the claim that he had been in England at the time of the murder. Upon this record and the apparent mind-set of the trial judge, we believe a timely objection and request for an admonition would have been futile. (People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.) Thus, the issue was not waived.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.