How have the courts treated the prosecution's display of a demonstration fishing lure in a murder trial?

People v. Barnett, supra, 17 Cal.4th 1044, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384, is illustrative. In that case, two witnesses observed the defendant hook a fishing lure into the victim's back before murdering him. The prosecution did not have the actual lure used by the defendant so he displayed a demonstration lure to the witnesses. Both witnesses described characteristics of the lure before the prosecutor displayed it, and one witness identified similarities and differences between the demonstration lure and the lure actually used by the defendant. The demonstration lure was substantially similar to the actual lure with the only difference being it lacked the feathers the actual lure had. We held the prosecutor's display of a demonstration lure was proper "[b]ecause it was useful for illustrative purposes and had no

[27 Cal.Rptr.3d 410]

tendency to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual" even though the actual lure was used by the defendant to injure and torture the victim before his death. (Id. at p. 1136, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384.) We further noted that "the prosecutor did not use deceptive or reprehensible methods of persuasion [citations] in showing the lure to the witnesses and did not try to pass it off as the lure used by the defendant. Commendably, the prosecutor specifically elicited testimony from [one of the witnesses] identifying the difference between the two lures. No misleading impression was created." (Ibid.)

[27 Cal.Rptr.3d 410]