California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Mendoza, 24 Cal.4th 130, 6 P.3d 150, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 (Cal. 2000):
At one point in her closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor also mentioned prison life in general in California. She said prisoners had access to libraries, television and videos; they could write and receive letters; and they could "even get married and have children." Again, we
[99 Cal.Rptr.2d 524]
need not here decide whether counsel's failure to object constituted deficient performance. (See People v. Quartermain (1997) 16 Cal.4th 600, 632, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 609, 941 P.2d 788 [conditions of confinement are irrelevant to a jury's penalty determination].) It is not reasonably probable the result here would have been different if the prosecutor had not made these remarks to the jury. (People v. May field, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 208, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 836, 852 P.2d 331.) The remarks were effectively countered when defense counsel in closing argument described prison conditions, recounting his numerous visits to inmates in maximum security prisons. Under these circumstances, defendant was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to object to the prosecution's comments in question.[99 Cal.Rptr.2d 524]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.