C:\Documents and Settings\Ejessen\Local Settings

$C:\Documents and Settings\Ejessen\Local Settings$ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) Supreme Court Plaintiff and Respondent, ) Crim. S040703 ) v. ) Los Angeles County ) Superior Court No. JAMES ROBINSON, JR., ) PA007095 ) Defendant and Appellant. ) _____________________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES _____________________________________________________________ APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF SUSAN K. MARR (State Bar No. 138383) 4562 Winston Drive Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 Telephone: (615) 661-8760 Attorney for Appellant James Robinson, Jr. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................. (xxxii) STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ...............................4 I. APPELLANT, JAMES ROBINSON, JR. .............4 A. James Robinson’s Family Background ...........4 B. James Meets Tai Williams And Tommy Aldridge ...4 C. High School And The Marines ..................5 D. College ....................................5 II. THE EVENTS LEADING UP TO JUNE 1991 .........5 A. James Robinson’s Circumstances In 1990 .........5 B. January of 1991 .............................6 C. James’ Employment And His Finances In 1991 .....7 D. James Moves In With Tai Williams And Donna Morgan ....................................8 E. Purchasing The Gun ..........................9 F. Tai And Donna’s Domestic Problems ............9 III. THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE HOMICIDES .10 A. Tai’s Plans To Rob The Subway Sandwich Shop ..10 B. Saturday, June 29, 1991 ......................12 C. James’ Discovery Of The Crime Scene ..........13 (i) D. Leaving Tai’s and Donna’s Apartment ..........15 E. Tommy Aldridge’s Visit To James’ Apartment ....16 F. James’ Arrest And Police Interview .............17 IV. THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES. .............17 A. Eyewitness Rebecca James’ View Of The Subway Sandwich Shop .............................17 B. Rebecca James’ Discovery Of The Reward Money And Her Subsequent Identification Of James Robinson ..........................19 C. The Evidence Obtained From The Crime Scene ...20 D. Prosecution Witnesses Tai Williams And Tommy Aldridge ..................................22 E. Testimony Of Dennis Ostrander ................24 F. Ostrander’s Attempts To Obtain Money From Lucky’s And The Alleged Threats .............25 V. JAMES’ RESPONSE TO THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES’ TESTIMONY ......................27 VI. SIGNIFICANT LEGAL EVENTS AT TRIAL .......28 A. The Trial Court’s Standardized Form Questionnaire ..............................28 B. The Defense Motion For Additional Voir Dire ....29 C. The Trial Court’s Voir Dire ...................32 D. Evidence Of Tai Williams And Tommy Aldridge’s Culpability .......................33 E. The Testimony Of Doctor Rogers ..............35 (ii) F. The Jury’s Request For A Read Back Of Testimony ..............................35 VII. THE FIRST PENALTY PHASE ...................36 VIII. THE SECOND PENALTY PHASE .................36 ARGUMENT ..............................................40 I. THE TRIAL COURT EXCLUDED SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT TWO KEY PROSECUTION WITNESSES COMMITTED THE CRIMES AND ALSO REFUSED TO PERMIT DEFENSE IMPEACHMENT WITH THIS EVIDENCE, CONTRARY TO STATE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF JAMES ROBINSON’S STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ....................40 A. Factual Background And Proceedings In The Trial Court ................................40 1. Tai Williams and Tommy Aldridge were critical witnesses for both the defense and the prosecution in this case ..............40 2. In addition to James Robinson’s testimony, the defense had other evidence which not only contradicted Tai Williams’ and Tommy Aldridge’s stories, but connected them to the Subway robbery and homicides ............................43 3. The trial court’s rulings prevented the jury from learning of Tai and Tommy’s arrests and Ralph Dudley’s sighting of the grey Mustang, which matched Tai’s car, at the crime scene .......................45 4. The trial court’s rulings to exclude the defense evidence not only unfairly (iii) prejudiced the defense but allowed the prosecutor to mislead the jury concerning the facts of the case ....................47 B. Overview Of Legal Arguments ................49 C. Standard Of Review .........................50 D. Exclusion Of The Proffered Third Party Culpability Evidence Violated Several Of James Robinson’s Fundamental Rights As Guaranteed By The Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth Amendments To The Federal Constitution ...............................51 1. The erroneous exclusion of the third party culpability evidence denied James Robinson his rights to present a defense and to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution ....................51 2. James Robinson’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross- examine witnesses was infringed by the trial court’s erroneous restriction of defense cross-examination ...............53 3. The conviction and sentence here were not sufficiently reliable under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments due to the erroneous exclusion of the third party culpability evidence ....................56 4. Conclusion ...........................57 E. Williams And Aldridge’s Arrests Were Relevant And Admissible Evidence Which Should Have Been Admitted Under Several (iv) Provisions Of California Law ..................58 1. The excluded evidence raised a reasonable doubt about James Robinson’s guilt and therefore satisfied California’s standard for the admission of third party culpability evidence .............................58 2. The proffered defense evidence of third party culpability ought to have been admitted because specific subjects (Tai and/or Tommy) were identified and because the evidence was not specu- lative but, rather, established a direct connection between the alternate suspects and the crime ..................60 3. The proffered defense evidence was highly relevant to establishing Tai’s and Tommy’s motives for testifying falsely against James, and also corroborated James’ own testimony in this area ...................62 4. The evidence of Tai and Tommy’s gun possession was relevant to impeach their credibility and California case law disfavors exclusion of this type of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 ..............64 5. The trial court’s exclusion of this relevant defense evidence was an abuse of its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 and was contrary to the policies concerning the admission of evidence in criminal cases expressed in California law ........................69 6. The trial court’s erroneous ruling denied James Robinson his federal constitutional rights to due process of law, fundamental fairness and a reliable determination of (v) guilt and of the penalty .................72 F. The Trial Court’s Exclusion Of The Defense Evidence Pertaining To Third Party Culpability Was Highly Prejudicial Error Requiring Reversal Of James Robinson’s Convictions Applying Either The Chapman Standard Of Reversal Or The Less Stringent Standard Of People v. Watson ...................................73 1. This Court should apply the “harmless error” standard of reversal of Chapman v. California because the trial court’s erroneous rulings affected James Robinson’s federal constitutional rights ....73 2. The state cannot show that the trial court’s rulings excluding the third party culpability evidence was harmless error because this evidence undermined the testimony and the credibility of the prosecution’s chief witnesses and its admission would have raised a reasonable doubt concerning James Robinson’s guilt ...75 a. The testimony excluded here was essential to the state’s case in the guilt phase of trial ....................75 b. Although Tai and Tommy corroborated one another in their testimony, the only other piece of corroborating evidence was highly questionable and their stories were contradicted by James Robinson’s testimony and by the excluded defense evidence .........76 c. The trial court’s refusal to allow other defense evidence which contradicted Tai’s and Tommy’s story and corroborated James’ (vi) testimony exacerbated the prejudice .......................78 d. The evidence of Tai’s and Tommy’s gun possession arrests was the only information the defense had to discredit these witnesses on cross-examination .....78 e. The prosecution’s case was not overwhelming and the excluded evidence of third party culpability could have raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt .................79 3. The exclusion of third party culpability evidence was so highly prejudicial that reversal is required applying the standard of People v. Watson ............81 G. Reversal Of James Robinson’s Sentence Of Death Is Required Because The Trial Court’s Evidentiary Rulings Prevented The Jury’s Consideration Of Relevant Evidence, Thus Precluding The Reliability Necessary Under The Eighth And Fourteenth Amendments ........82 1. The trial court’s exclusion of the third party culpability evidence was especially prejudicial under the circumstances of this case ...............82 2. James Robinson had a federal constitutional right to present evidence of third party culpability in the penalty phase of his capital trial and the state cannot show that exclusion of this evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ...............................85 (vii)

Load more