How has the late discovery of human remains impeded appellant's defense?

Although appellant argues that his defense was impeded, appellant provides no explanation of how the late discovery hindered his defense. Defense counsel claimed at trial that he would have argued that the state of decomposition of the third set of remains would have supported an argument that appellant could not have deposited the remains in Griffith Park before he moved to Texas. But his "generalized statements are insufficient to demonstrate prejudice." (Verdugo, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 282.) Moreover, as the prosecutor pointed out, the defense could still pursue such a theory when questioning coroner's investigators. Indeed, defense counsel cross-examined witnesses regarding decomposition. Counsel also could have requested a continuance to allow time to consult with his experts regarding the new evidence. (See People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 646-647 [trial court has broad discretion in granting a continuance during trial].)

Page 10