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 |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. William Silveira, Judge of the Tulare County Superior Court.
Michael Cross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Robert Gezi, for Respondent.
-ooOoo-
More than 20 years ago, petitioner Mark Collin Sodersten was convicted of the special circumstance murder of Julie Wilson and related offenses. The jury spared his life. Sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, petitioner pursued his appeal in this court and lost. Some 12 years after his conviction, this court directed the superior court to hear and determine petitioner's various claims in a habeas proceeding. The habeas proceeding remained in the trial court for six years while discovery and investigative proceedings ensued. During that process, it was discovered that at the time of trial, prosecuting and law enforcement authorities were aware of or actually possessed tape-recorded statements of the two key trial witnesses that contained inconsistent statements, as well as admissions of lying and coercive interrogation of one of the witnesses. These tape recordings were never disclosed to the defense. After consideration of all arguments, the trial court denied petitioner's writ, finding no prejudice in light of all the evidence.
In this court, petitioner pressed his claim that this suppression of evidence denied him a fair trial. We issued an order to show cause why the relief requested, a new trial, should not be granted. During briefing of the issues raised by the writ of habeas corpus, petitioner died in Corcoran State Prison at the age of 48.
There are many literary, historical, and legal descriptions of what constitutes a fair and impartial trial. We will not detail them herein. At the very least, a trial is a presentation of evidence, the purpose of which is to allow the trier of fact to resolve whether it can have sufficient confidence in the facts supporting the requested result, such that it is willing to find the result proven with the degree of certainty required by the type of case. Under the American system of justice, the high degree of certainty required in a criminal case, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, can sometimes result in the guilty going free. While this allows the presumption of innocence to prevail, it does not mean that the trial has concluded the defendant is factually innocent. It does mean that guilt has not been proven by the standard required. An accused who has been acquitted, even though he or she may in fact have committed the crime charged, is entitled to be presumed innocent because guilt cannot or has not been proven with the degree of certainty required. Thus, under our system of justice, the guilty can go free in order to ensure as much as possible that the innocent are not convicted. This is an accepted consequence of a system of justice that places a high price on freedom – a system of justice for which this country has fought on numerous fronts and offered up innumerable lives to preserve and defend.
When a defendant is convicted, we conclude that the jury has resolved what the truth is for purposes of imposing the consequences the law demands. In that sense, a trial is a search for the truth (See, e.g., Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 295 (dis. opn. of White, J.).) However, what is fundamental to this search is that it â€
