P v. CHATMAN
Filed 5/8/06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
)
v. )
Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 143749
___________ )
Story Continued from Part III ……..
As the Zambrano court held, the district attorney's questions called for irrelevant and speculative testimony. It was clear that the defendant was testifying to a diametrically different set of circumstances from that recounted by the officers. The differences could not have been attributed to mistake or faulty recall. Defendant, a stranger to the officers, had no basis for insight into their bias, interest, or motive to be untruthful. Had the prosecutor asked why they might lie, which she did not, it would have been apparent that any answer would have been speculative. Under these circumstances, the questions did not develop facts regarding defendant's own testimony. They â€
