P. v. Ramirez CA2/2
Defendant and appellant Jose Trinidad Ramirez (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction of murder. Defendant contends that the judgment should be reversed because his trial counsel failed to render constitutionally effective assistance; the “jailhouse informer ‘system’” should not be countenanced; the gang expert relied on case-specific hearsay; a mistrial should have been granted due to an alleged comment regarding defendant’s silence; the trial court should have excused a juror for bias; and the cumulative effect of all these errors was prejudicial. We reject many of defendant’s contentions as unsupported by sufficiently developed arguments to be cognizable on appeal. We find the remaining contentions to be without merit, and thus affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Ramirez CA2/2