PEOPLE v. CLEOPHUS PRINCE, JR PART VII
Denial of venue change in highly publicized murder case did not deprive defendant of fair trial where neither defendant nor his victims were prominent in community; publicity largely ceased nine months before trial; venire members, in particular those who were eventually seated as jurors, did not indicate that they were much affected by publicity; and jury was seated without exhaustion of defense peremptory challenges. Admission of expert testimony, based on crime scene analysis, that the six murders with which defendant was charged were all committed by same person was not an abuse of discretion or a violation of due process where expert had extensive training and experience and thus had an ability to make comparisons that lay jurors might not have been able to draw by sheer observation. Such testimony does not constitute inadmissible profile evidence where it makes no mention of defendant. Evidence of incident in which defendant followed and stared at witness, but did not attack her, was properly admitted to show common scheme or plan where it occurred in area where murders with which defendant was charged occurred; witness, like victims, was a young white woman; and other evidence showed that defendant had observed and followed victims in a similar manner. Trial court did not violate defendant's right to a public trial by closing courtroom during brief portion of FBI agent's testimony that described a crime scene in a murder committed subsequent to defendant's arrest that remained under investigation, and which defense claimed may have been committed by someone who also committed murders with which defendant was charged; public interest in protecting integrity of ongoing probe justified closing a "very minor" portion of proceedings. Admission of 25 minute videotape of interview given by victim some months before she was murdered, as victim impact evidence in penalty phase, was not unduly prejudicial where interview was a "calm, even static, discussion of [victim's] accomplishments and interests that takes place entirely in a neutral, bland setting," without accompanying music or cuts to other shots of victim, and did not appear to affect jurors more sharply than other victim impact evidence. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating California determinate sentencing law to extent it permits imposition of longer prison term based on judicial fact finding has no application to capital sentencing.
Comments on PEOPLE v. CLEOPHUS PRINCE, JR PART VII