legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re MARK COLLIN SODERSTEN PART II

In re MARK COLLIN SODERSTEN PART II
02:22:2007

In re MARK COLLIN SODERSTEN


 


In re MARK COLLIN SODERSTEN


Filed 1/17/07


 


 


 


CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT







In re MARK COLLIN SODERSTEN


On Habeas Corpus.



F047425


 


OPINION


STORY CONTINUED FROM PART I……….


 


 


B.        The Undisclosed Tape Recordings


            As previously described, during the course of his investigation in conjunction with the writ proceedings, petitioner's counsel came into possession of tape-recorded interviews of Nicole Wilson, conducted on March 3, 1986, and April 7, 1986; a tape-recorded interview of Lester Williams, conducted on December 1, 1984; and a conversation between Williams and petitioner that was surreptitiously recorded on December 14, 1984.[1]


·              March 3, 1986, interview of Nicole Wilson


            The first portion of this interview was conducted by Phillip Cline, the trial prosecutor.  The second portion was conducted by his investigator, John Johnson.  Throughout the interview, Nicole's tone was often playful, with a singsong quality to it.  Sometimes she sounded reluctant; other times, bored, even when discussing the death of her mother.  Occasionally, she sounded sad.


            The interview began with Cline telling Nicole that he wanted her to pretend like they were in court.  When he asked her last name, she responded, â€





Description Prosecutors' failure to disclose to defense tape-recorded interviews of two eyewitnesses denied defendant fair trial where there was no physical evidence linking defendant to murder; eyewitnesses were key in establishing his identity as the killer; tape - recording of one witness, victim's daughter, showed she was distracted during interview with prosecutor and equivocated as to identity of killer but settled on defendant after persistent questioning; and tape recording of adult eyewitness who had previously implicated defendant in the crime captured him insisting to police amid coercive interrogation that he was too high on drugs to recall anything about the event. Defendant's petition for habeas corpus was not mooted by his death where withheld tapes would have substantially changed how jurors perceived eyewitnesses, and jurors without knowledge of tapes convicted defendant of first degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale