How have the courts dealt with allegations of intimidation in a civil case?

and stared at the witnesses to intimidate them.¹⁴ He asserts these inferences of intimidation were speculative, as found by the trial court. The record shows the trial court ruled the prosecutor could not present evidence of intimidation based on defendant's mere presence at the taco shop during the walk-through; however, the court did not preclude reference to defendant's staring conduct. Thus, the arguments premised on the staring were not improper. On the other hand, based on the court's ruling, the prosecutor should not have stated that defendant intentionally went to the taco shop to intimidate the witnesses. However, this claim of error is forfeited on appeal because defense counsel failed to object. (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 243-244.) Moreover, there is no showing of prejudice. The jury had been presented with admissible evidence of intimidation based on the staring; thus, the issue of intimidation was properly before the jury and was not introduced solely by the improper reference to defendant's

Page 24