California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Trammel, C080760 (Cal. App. 2016):
Defendant contends the prosecutor's remarks amounted to comment on his choice not to testify, because it highlighted the absence of evidence that only he could provide. (People v. Thomas (2012) 54 Cal.4th 908, 945.)
Failure to lodge a contemporaneous objection and a request for an admonition forfeits any claim of prosecutorial misconduct, except where a defendant affirmatively establishes on appeal that it was irremediable or it was futile to object, with more than a "ritual[ized] incantation" to this effect. (People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 462.) Defendant has not established futility on the present record, nor particularized the reasons why these statements could not have been the subject of an effective admonition.
Defendant's attempt to reach the issue under the guise of ineffective assistance of trial counsel fails in two regards. In the first place, direct appeal is almost inevitably the inappropriate forum for establishing that the inherently tactical choice of failing to raise an objection to misconduct fell below reasonable professional standards. (People v. Lopez (2008) 42 Cal.4th 960, 966, 972.) In the second place, defendant does not provide anything more than a perfunctory analysis of how the failure to object in each instance did not meet objective professional standards; "[t]his will not suffice" (People v. Mitchell (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 442, 466-467 [rejecting claim of ineffective assistance on this
Page 17
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.