Defendants and Appellants. ) Super. Ct. No. BA001542
_______________________________________ )
Continue from Part I …….
In Lewis's first Pitchess motion, filed on April 18, 1991, he attached what appears to be a photograph of himself when he was booked for the murders. (He claims it shows he was beaten -- a circumstance we do not discern from copies of the photograph in the record.) Also attached to Lewis's motion were photocopies of newspaper articles reporting allegations or episodes of police misconduct in unrelated cases. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on May 31, 1991. The court denied the motion because Lewis failed to include a police report, as statutorily required. (See Evid. Code, § 1046.)
On June 4, 1991, Lewis filed a second Pitchess motion. This time he included the required police report among the attachments, and excluded the booking photograph. The hearing on the second motion occurred on July 19, 1991. The trial court indicated that it had carefully reviewed the moving papers. Ultimately, it found no prima facie evidence of a police conspiracy, and no basis for an in camera review of the requested personnel records. The court viewed the discovery request as a â€
Description
Self-represented defendant may relinquish right to continue representing self in absence of substantial evidence of mental incompetence. Excusal of potential juror for cause in capital case was appropriate where answers to questions about death penalty were equivocal and included statement that potential juror would never vote for death penalty for nonshooter, which prosecution was seeking. Comparative analysis showing that minority venire members were challenged based on responses to questionnaires, while white venire members who gave similar answers were not challenged, did not establish that challenges were racially motivated where jurors were not similarly situated but differed with respect to such characteristics as level of knowledge of the subject matter. The vehemence and consistency or lack thereof with which they asserted views that could be construed as antipolice, antiprosecution, or antideath penalty. Trial court did not violate defendant's statutory and constitutional rights to be present at proceedings by allowing verdict to be read while defendant was hospitalized after being stabbed by another inmate. Where defendant's condition was serious, it was unknown when he would be able to return to court. He suffered no prejudice. Prosecution argument that jurors in penalty phase should take into consideration fact that murders occurred in a church did not constitute improper use of religious imagery. Trial judge is not required to augment record with personal, handwritten notes relied on in denying motion for modification of death penalty verdict.
