What is the Attorney General's position on a referee's finding that a defense counsel's decision not to investigate the backgrounds of informants was constitutionally deficient?

The Attorney General takes issue with each of the referee's findings related to this claim. First, the Attorney General maintains that defense counsel's decision not to undertake any investigation of the informants' backgrounds, while ultimately unsuccessful, was not constitutionally deficient. The Attorney General acknowledges that although courts generally are reluctant to second guess the tactical decisions of counsel, such decisions are not totally immune from scrutiny and may fall below a constitutionally [3 Cal.4th 604] minimal standard of competence. (See, e.g., People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 166, 158 Cal.Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587.) He argues, however, that the referee erred in finding that counsel's action fell into the latter category.

Additionally, the Attorney General challenges the referee's conclusions on both points relating to the issue of prejudice.

Page 547