In re MARK COLLIN SODERSTEN
Filed
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re MARK COLLIN SODERSTEN On Habeas Corpus. | F047425
OPINION |
STORY CONTINUED FROM PART IV……….
The parties in the writ proceedings apparently never noticed the discrepancy in Woods's testimony, and so never explored whether his testimony in this regard was the result of a lapse of memory or deliberate. Given the fact that it was during the December 1 interview that officers went beyond threatening to charge Williams with murder to threatening him with the death penalty – the type of tactics this court previously has condemned as coercive (see, e.g., People v. Hinds (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 222, 237-238; People v. Flores (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 459, 470-472) – the lapse raises extremely serious issues. The failure to disclose evidence of improper and coercive interrogation of a witness preceding a statement that is beneficial to the prosecution engenders significant questions about the credibility of the beneficial statement. A well-trained police officer would be expected to know that such conduct would be detrimental to the prosecution's case. There is no question that law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities would be fully aware of the impact a taped admission of lying about the defendant's culpability would have. Thus, we have grave concerns about why the improper interrogation, as well as the existence of a tape of the interrogation and the admission of lying, was not acknowledged in sworn testimony. Although we do not rest our decision in this case on a finding of perjury, we cannot help but note that deliberate falsity â€
