What evidence of third-party culpability was found to be prejudicial at trial?

All of defendant's evidence was basically evidence of third-party culpability. "'To be admissible, [such] third-party [culpability] evidence . . . need only be capable of raising a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. At the same time, we do not require that any evidence, however remote, must be admitted to show a third party's possible culpability. . . . [E]vidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant's guilt: there must be direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime.' [Citation.]" (People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 860.)

1. Jailhouse informants' evidence.

Our previous opinion mentioned the jailhouse informants' evidence, albeit briefly; we lumped it in with the other third-party culpability evidence, which we concluded was prejudicial, although only minimally so. (People v. Hayes, supra, at p. *36.) On remand, defendant developed this evidence in vastly more detail. Nevertheless, the trial court could reasonably find that the loss of this evidence was not prejudicial at all.

Page 23