ÿWPC>+ šDn÷3Qľ}-ûÇ¿‰Ö¾´£Ù>¿-1N©G¥&qΗ,™ ·±I…‰“Æ­ÜÈ{¿yñyÉwƒÏ—¹"«?µ0#êf†¤©*ÒÓU N¥»ó8®^æ D¯JjùMc¸° h!>}"†»#©A$Òê$ϼ&8‹'^Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã(Ã( B!+˜HP LaserJet 4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡€žÞ0‰ 0123U45g6U7U8E9YÂ0x¨>“3|x9)ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(www.courtinfo.ca.gov).(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ)ô\  `0Tms Rmn 12pt25inOne!xÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular kidnappingminimisasportedRicky assWitkinwebsiteSDAP.ORGe]ven suasponteHannonKimbrellLiebmanStricklandEldridgeFriersonStrattonAvilaGalazaPirtleHotbauerDiggsCambraWoodforddeconstructLockhartc]ontraryHofbauerasportationBrevermanGuruleBelmontespresentenceAcostaNilsenmindset(www.adi-sandiego.com).((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ¥Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOK,€I€admit€it,€I€know€next€to€nothing€about€Zen,€and€just€wanted€a€catchy€title.€ `Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMillman,€ð ðTraining€Memo:€Looking€for€Issues€in€Appeal,ðð€State€Public€DefenderððsÐ ° ÐAppellate€Practice€Manual,€1981,€p.€201.€With€the€authorððs€permission,€I€will€borrow€here€andÏthere€from€this€very€useful€ð ðearlyðð€work€on€this€subject. CÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhen€quoting€from€the€e„mail€responses,€I€have€taken€it€upon€myself€to€act€as€editorÐ ° Ðonly€to€elucidate€the€meaning€of€the€comments€or€to€correct€the€very€few€obvious€typos€that€comeÏwith€the€e„mail€mode€of€communication. ®Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDonððt€worry.€€I€will€not€be€announcing€a€òòjihadóó€against€certain€appellate€justices. Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔI€recognize€that€the€great€legal€scholar€Pooh€Bear€identified€this€creature€as€a€ð ðJagular,ððÐ ° Ðbut€could€not€figure€out€how€to€include€this€in€the€present€essay. MillmanSchraer KatKozikSiracoSchaarJagularCrosslandSalasYaKnottsAIDOAC ISSiMarsdenskookiestHarvis 4Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔUnlike€my€other€respondents,€George€did€not€e„mail€me,€but€called€on€the€phone.€€TheÐ ° Ðcomments€that€follow€are€from€my€notes€of€our€conversation,€which€I€have€since€destroyedÏpursuant€to€standard€procedure. |Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€also€helps€to€be€George€Schraer.ò òó ó ŸÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔStephen€discussed€a€version€of€this€approach€at€SDAPððs€May,€1998€seminar. ÈÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhich€addresses€the€prerequisite€to€a€claim€of€jury€instruction€error,€i.e.,€the€requirementÐ ° Ðthat€there€be€a€ð ðreasonable€likelihood€€that€Ô_ÔthÔ_Ô€e€jury€has€applied€the€challenged€instruction€in€a€Ïway€that€violates€the€Ô_ÔcontstitutionÔ_Ô.€(òòEstelleóó€v.€òòMcGuireóó€(1991)€502€U.S.€62,€72.))¼^S Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ±Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€As€Christopher€Robin€said,€ð ðI€try€to€remember,€and€then€when€I€do€remember,€I€forget.ðð .Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€one€point€on€which€Kyle€and€I€agreed€in€our€e„mail€exchange€was€that€theÐ ° Ðprerequisite€to€developing€effective€issue€spotting€technique€is€ð ðfiguring€out€who€you€are€andÏwhat€works€for€you.ðð TÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJulie€Schumerððs€approach€is€similar.€€ð ðWhat€I€do€is€think€about€the€case€for€a€while,€thenÐ ° Ðget€out€my€notes€and€start€with€page€1,€reviewing€the€whole€thing€again.€€I€have€FORECITE€atÏthe€ready,€plus€other€articles,€seminar€handouts,€etc.€that€I€think€may€have€something€pertinent.€€€IÏtry€to€keep€abreast€of€any€new€issues€that€might€be€percolating€around,€such€as€with€juryÏinstructions,€etc.€If€I€have€an€idea€I€think€might€be€a€bit€oddball,€I€call€a€colleague€and€get€theirÏopinion.H ¥Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOK,€I€admit€it,€I€know€next€to€nothing€about€Zen,€and€just€wanted€a€catchy€title.€ `Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMillman,€ð ðTraining€Memo:€Looking€for€Issues€in€Appeal,ðð€State€Public€DefenderððsÐ ° ÐAppellate€Practice€Manual,€1981,€p.€201.€With€the€authorððs€permission,€I€will€borrow€here€andÏthere€from€this€very€useful€ð ðearlyðð€work€on€this€subject. CÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhen€quoting€from€the€e„mail€responses,€I€have€taken€it€upon€myself€to€act€as€editorÐ ° Ðonly€to€elucidate€the€meaning€of€the€comments€or€to€correct€the€very€few€obvious€typos€thatÏcome€with€the€e„mail€mode€of€communication. ®Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔDonððt€worry.€€I€will€not€be€announcing€a€òòjihadóó€against€certain€appellate€justices. Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔI€recognize€that€the€great€legal€scholar€Pooh€Bear€identified€this€creature€as€a€ð ðJagular,ððÐ ° Ðbut€could€not€figure€out€how€to€include€this€in€the€present€essay. 4Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔUnlike€my€other€respondents,€George€did€not€e„mail€me,€but€called€on€the€phone.€€TheÐ ° Ðcomments€that€follow€are€from€my€notes€of€our€conversation,€which€I€have€since€destroyedÏpursuant€to€standard€procedure. |Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€also€helps€to€be€George€Schraer.ò òó ó ŸÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔStephen€discussed€a€version€of€this€approach€at€SDAPððs€May,€1998€seminar. ÈÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhich€addresses€the€prerequisite€to€a€claim€of€jury€instruction€error,€i.e.,€the€requirementÐ ° Ðthat€there€be€a€ð ðreasonable€likelihood€€that€Ô_ÔthÔ_Ô€e€jury€has€applied€the€challenged€instruction€in€a€Ïway€that€violates€the€Ô_ÔcontstitutionÔ_Ô.€(òòEstelleóó€v.€òòMcGuireóó€(1991)€502€U.S.€62,€72.) ÅÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€As€Christopher€Robin€said,€ð ðI€try€to€remember,€and€then€when€I€do€remember,€IÐ ° Ðforget.ðð .Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€one€point€on€which€Kyle€and€I€agreed€in€our€e„mail€exchange€was€that€theÐ ° Ðprerequisite€to€developing€effective€issue€spotting€technique€is€ð ðfiguring€out€who€you€are€andÏwhat€works€for€you.ðð TÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJulie€Schumerððs€approach€is€similar.€€ð ðWhat€I€do€is€think€about€the€case€for€a€while,€thenÐ ° Ðget€out€my€notes€and€start€with€page€1,€reviewing€the€whole€thing€again.€€I€have€FORECITE€atÏthe€ready,€plus€other€articles,€seminar€handouts,€etc.€that€I€think€may€have€something€pertinent.€€€IÏtry€to€keep€abreast€of€any€new€issues€that€might€be€percolating€around,€such€as€with€juryÏinstructions,€etc.€If€I€have€an€idea€I€think€might€be€a€bit€oddball,€I€call€a€colleague€and€get€theirÏopinion. dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ TŸ!XXÔñ4ñÐ ° ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@++#ìàTHE€GESTALT€ANDˆÌà@ÿÿ"ìàTHE€SPECIFIC:€HOWˆÌà@ëë#ìàTO€SPOT€ISSUESˆÌà@  &ìàON€APPEALˆÌà@PP)ìàByˆÌÌà@YY!ìàWilliam€M.€RobinsonˆÌÌà@++)ìàandˆÌÌà@  $ìàDallas€Sacherñ4ñÔ#†Xµ X! TŸ+#Ôñ4ñˆÐ T¤ ÐÐ  –æ ÐØØÔ€ŠÁ‹XX^©ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑH°ÑÑ8€^©XdðdÈ8ÑÔ_Ôñ4ññ5ñÑ8€µ XdìdÈ8Ññ5ñà@´´)ìàI.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà@# # ìà€ò òZEN€AND€THE€ART€OF€ISSUE€SPOTTINGó óñ/ñ׃×ñ/ññ/ñ׃$×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñ7ñˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌBy€ñ7ññ8ññ7ñSñ7ññ8ññ9ñDallas€Ô_ÔSacherÔ_Ô€and€Bill€Ô_ÔRobinsonñ9ñÔ_ÔÌÓ€ÓÌÓ€ÎÓò òÓ€ÓIntroductionó óÐ Æ  Ðà  àMichael€Ô_ÔMillmanÔ_Ô€said€it€well€23€years€ago:€ð ðI€read€records€and€come€up€with€assignmentsÏof€error,€but€it€is€not€at€all€clear€to€me€that€I€know€how€to€do€it€ð!ð€or€that€I€can€communicate€what€IÐ Š Ú  Ðdo€to€anyone€else.ððñ/ñ׃|×ñ/ññ/ñ׃%€×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ì <  Ðà  àIn€preparing€this€outline,€I€was€assisted€by€some€of€the€best€practitioners€of€issue€spotting€ÏI€know:€George€Schraer,€Mark€Greenberg,€Kyle€Gee,€Kat€Kozik,€Alan€Siraco,€Julie€Schumer,ÏCourtney€Shevelson,€Lori€Klein,€Dennis€Riordan,€and€Stephen€Greenberg.€€Lacking€the€resourcesÏto€get€this€group€together€in€one€room€or€on€a€conference€call,€I€sent€out€an€e„mail€asking€forÏresponses€to€some€very€general€questions€about€the€mental€mind„set€or€ð ðgestaltðð€of€issue€spotting.€ÏMuch€of€what€follows€borrows€from€the€very€thoughtful€and€nuanced€comments€of€thisÏoutstanding,€very€experienced€group€of€appellate€lawyers.ñ/ñ׃×ñ/ññ/ñ׃&×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð šê Ðà  àThe€responses€received€from€this€group€suggest€that€a€host€of€seemingly€diverse€mentalÏapproaches,€habits,€and€practices€inform€the€practice€of€issue€spotting.€€I€will€try€to€summarizeÏthem€in€some€sort€of€analytical€order.€€The€goal€is€to€give€you,€as€a€criminal€appellateÏpractitioner,€some€ideas€about€different€approaches€to€issue€spotting€that€work€for€others.€€Ìà  àMany€of€the€approaches€and€suggestions€here€will€appear€familiar.€€Some€will€seem€fairlyÏmechanical,€others€more€abstract.€€Issue€spotting€is€an€art.€€Of€course,€there€are€many€ways€ofÏmaking€fine€art,€and€wise€folk€since€Socrates€have€understood€that€you€canððt€always€rely€on€anÏartist€being€able€to€explain€how€he€or€she€does€it.€€So,€use€what€seems€useful,€consider€whatÐ ª"ú* Ðmight€seem€new€or€unusual,€and€hopefully€emerge€with€some€new€energy€about€issue€spotting,Ïthe€critical€genesis„point€of€appellate€practice.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLT ÓA.€€ò òMental€Setó óÐ X¨ Ðà  àWe€can€start€with€some€important€precepts€about€issue€spotting€suggested€by€MichaelÏMillman.€€Take€your€time.€€Be€curious.€€Allow€yourself€to€be€intrigued€by€a€possible€issue,Ïoutraged€by€an€obvious€unfairness,€and€troubled€about€something€that€seems€just€plain€wrong.€€Ìà  àSome€years€ago,€when€I€was€a€graduate€student€in€political€theory,€I€had€a€great€teacher,ÏJohn€Schaar.€€A€fellow€student€once€asked€Schaar€how€he€approached€the€reading€of€a€particularÏgreat€work€of€political€philosophy.€€ð ðWith€ardor€and€shyness,ðð€he€responded.€€I€like€that€approach,Ïthough€Iððd€alter€it€for€our€more€mundane€purposes€to€ð ðardor€and€humility.ðð€€You€need€to€beÏòòardentóó€about€your€search€for€arguable€and€winnable€issues,€for€you€are€the€embodiment€of€theÐ n¾  Ðdiligent€conscientious€advocate€to€which€our€clients€are€entitled€under€our€constitutional€system.€ÏBut€you€also€need€to€be€òòhumbleóó€about€your€own€state€of€knowledge€about€possible€issues€andÐ 2‚ Ðarguments,€no€matter€how€experienced€and€practiced€you€are€in€this€field€of€law.Ìà  àEvery€one€of€us€can€probably€tell€a€story€about€a€potential€issue€which€was€initiallyÏexamined€and€passed€over€ð!ð€because€of€bad€facts,€a€failure€to€preserve€the€issue€at€trial,€or€someÐ X¨ Ðseemingly€immovable€contrary€case€law€authority€ð!ð€but€which€ultimately,€after€further€research,Ð º  Ðconsultation€with€colleagues,€and/or€creative€issue€development,€turned€into€a€winning€claim€forÏthe€client.€€Be€curious€about€matters€which€you€may€not€quite€understand,€whether€it€is€aÏparticular€procedural€issue€which€comes€up€in€a€case,€or€a€point€of€law€that€is€unfamiliar€to€you.€ÏFilling€in€the€gaps€may€lead€you€to€a€great€issue,€either€in€the€present€case€or€in€another€oneÏsomewhere€down€the€road.€€ÌÌB.€€ò òMantras€of€Issue€Spottingó ó.€€Ð h#¸- Ðà  àOK,€here€I€go€again,€misusing€Eastern€metaphysics.ñ/ñ׃×ñ/ññ/ñ׃'×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€But€I€couldnððt€miss€the€fact€thatÐ Ð$ / Ðmost€of€the€respondents€to€my€issue€spotting€e„mail€had€a€key€concept,€or€prime€directive,€thatÏwas€described€as€a€frequently€helpful€pathway€to€finding€winning€issues.€€These€approaches€seemÏto€divide€up€into€four€different€general€approaches.Ð ö(F$5 ÐÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÓÓ€Ó1.à8  àò òIf€It€Stinks,€Go€For€It!€€If€it€Donððt€Sit€Well,€Get€Up€and€Do€Something€AboutÐ öF ÐIt!ó óÐæ6Ð Ð  ÐÓ€BÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€Óà  àJulie€Schumer€described€a€ð ðbad€feelingðð€litmus€test€which€helps€lead€her€toward€spottingÏmeritorious€issues.ÌÓ33€Óà8  àMost€of€my€winners€have€been€because€something€felt€ð ðwrongðð€in€the€case,Ïthough€I€could€not€necessarily€at€first€articulate€it€and€pigeon„hole€it€into€anÏarguable€issue€as€we€know€them.€€There€is€a€good€deal€of€instinct€involved.€€OnceÏI€have€the€psychic€feeling,€I€then€try€to€translate€that€into€some€kind€of€legalÏargument€with€a€liberal€dose€of€due€process.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33­ÓÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLgÓà  àDennis€Riordan€gives€this€concept€a€catchy€name.€€After€describing€the€more€typicalÏappellate€approach€of€starting€with€what€we€know€about€legal€errors€and€review‚ing€a€transcriptÏcarefully€to€find€them,€he€describes€how€the€converse€approach€of€ð ðmoving€from€the€record€to€theÏlawðð€is€equally€important.ÌÓ33€Óà8  àWe€identify€every€piece€of€evidence,€or€argument,€or€instruction€that€hurt€ourÏclient€under€the€ð ðSitwellðð€doctrine:€it€if€doesnððt€sit€well,€it€must€be€wrong.€€WeÏthen€research€the€issue€to€see€if€the€law€could€possible€provide€an€arguable€claimÏthat,€until€this€point,€we€had€no€idea€existed.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33ÒÓÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLJÓà  àI€have€always€thought€of€this€approach€as€a€kind€of€ð ðstinkðð€test.€€If€something€reallyÏsmells€bad,€if€it€outrages€you€with€its€unfairness,€presume€thereððs€an€issue€there€and€then€go€andÏfind€it.€€Donððt€be€daunted€the€lack€of€clear€authority,€or€even€by€what€looks€like€contraryÏauthority.€€Ìà  àA€good€example€of€this€is€the€recent€òòWestfallóó€case,€where€I€assisted€panel€attorney€GeraldÐ ›ë# ÐClausen.€This€felony€drunk€driving€case€featured€a€pretty€good€version€of€the€familiar€defense€of,Ïð ðWas€he€òòdrivingóó€drunk€or€just€passed€out€after€drinking€while€sitting€in€his€truck?ðð€When,€after€aÐ _"¯' Ðhalf€day€of€deliberations,€the€jury€told€the€judge€they€didnððt€think€they€could€reach€a€verdict,€heÏadvised€them€to€Ô‡‚r‚XXUXÔð ðmull€it€over€tonight.ðð€€There€was€no€objection€to€this€comment.€€Ô#†XUXX‚‚rÂŒ#ÔThe€nextÐ #%s + Ðday,€after€returning,€the€jury€pretty€quickly€reached€a€verdict.Ìà  àThe€judgeððs€comments€to€the€jury€really€stunk.€€But€I€couldnððt€easily€figure€out€the€legalÏbasis€for€attacking€it.€€This€was€not€a€case€where€the€jurors€were€advised€to€violate€theÏadmonition€against€discussing€the€case€with€others€outside€of€deliberations,€but€only€to€ð ðmull€itÏoverððon€their€own.€€And€there€was€no€objection.€€But€it€still€stunk.€€So,€I€went€to€the€case€law,€toÐ (,x'5 Ðall€the€CALJIC€instructions,€and€to€FORECITE,€and€ultimately€found€some€helpful€language€ð!ðÐ ° Ðbut€no€clear€case€law€ð!ð€about€the€juryððs€duty€to€ð ðkeep€an€open€mindðð€during€deliberations€and€toÐ b Ðnot€form€opinions€about€the€case€except€in€the€context€of€deliberations.€€The€absence€of€anÏobjection€could€be€overcome€if€we€could€show€that€this€was€an€improper€judicial€instructionÏwhich€told€the€jurors€to€violate€the€defendantððs€constitutional€right€to€an€impartial€jury.€€On€theseÏscant€suggestions,€Gerry€Clausen€did€a€lot€more€research€and€put€together€a€strong€argumentÏattacking€the€judgeððs€ð ðmull€it€overðð€directive.€€To€our€very€pleasant€surprise,€the€argumentÏrecently€led€to€a€full€(unfortunately€unpublished)€reversal€in€the€case.ÌÓ€Ó2.à8  àò òGoing€for€the€Jugularñ/ñ׃×ñ/ññ/ñ׃(×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ð!ð€Attacking€the€Prosecutionððs€Weak€Point€andÐ À  ÐFocusing€on€the€Impingement€of€the€Defenseððs€Strong€Points.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€;%ÓÓ€€ÓÌó óÓ€€Ÿ&Óà  àMany€of€the€respondents€to€my€informal€survey€described€an€alternative€mind€set€whichÐ b  Ðthey€believed€to€be€critical€to€good€issue€spotting.€€This€approach€focuses€not€on€what€smells€badÏfrom€the€case,€but€on€the€strengths€and€weaknesses€of€the€prosecution€and€defense€cases.€€We€allÏknow€that€appeals€are€won€or€lost€based€on€the€strength€of€the€òòprejudiceóó€arguments€as€much,€ifÐ 8ˆ Ðnot€more,€than€on€the€merits€of€the€claim€of€trial€court€error.€€This€second€approach€permits€youÏto€zoom€in€on€the€issues€where€the€strongest€prejudice€arguments€will€be€found,€then€locate€theÏerrors€which€will€make€such€prejudice€arguments€fly.Ìà  àGeorge€Ô_ÔSchraerÔ_Ô€describes€a€method€he€uses€which€he€got€from€Jeannie€Sternberg.ñ/ñ׃h×ñ/ññ/ñ׃)×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ À! Ðfirst€thing€George€does€is€figure€out€what€it€was€the€prosecution€òòabsolutely€needed€to€prove€óótoÐ "r# Ðwin€the€case.€€What€was€the€tough€part€for€them?€€Once€youððve€sorted€this€out,€you€workÏbackwards€from€this,€figuring€out€what€evidence,€arguments€and€sometimes€deceitful€practices€itÏtook€for€the€prosecutor€to€get€to€where€he€or€she€had€to€go.€€This€then€leads€you€to€the€areasÏwhere€you€can€successfully€attack€the€conviction.€€In€effect,€youððre€starting€your€issue€spottingÏout€by€first€identifying€where€the€strongest€òòprejudiceóó€argument€will€be€found,€even€before€youÐ  $\- Ðfind€or€identify€the€issue.€Ìà  àGeorge€reminds€us€that€if€you€are€on€to€something€that€feels€promising€with€regard€to€thisÏtype€of€issue,€donððt€be€discouraged€or€intimidated€by€what€appears€to€be€adverse€authority,€andÏdonððt€be€frozen€into€inaction€because€there€is€no€clear€authority€on€the€issue,€or€indirectlyÏunfavorable€authority.€€Think€it€through:€What€do€I€need€to€make€this€into€a€winning€argument?€ÏSometimes€you€must€argue€that€a€court€of€appeal€case€is€wrongly€decided,€but€usually€there€areÏbetter€ways€of€arguing€that€youððre€right.€€Keep€looking€for€favorable€authority,€even€if€itððs€notÏexactly€on€the€same€point,€but€only€a€related€topic,€and€look€for€ways€of€putting€together€twoÏholdings€on€unrelated€subjects€to€make€up€a€unified€argument€for€your€case.Ìà  àAs€an€example,€George€cited€a€recent€case€where€he€won€on€the€merits€of€the€issue€(butÏlost€on€harmless€error€analysis),€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòHendersonóó€(2003)€110€Cal.App.4th€737.€€The€issueÐ „Ô  Ðthere€involved€a€novel€combination€of€hitherto€unrelated€subjects:€the€defenseððs€entitlement€toÏinstructions€on€third€party€culpability,€and€the€generally€prosecution„friendly€practice€ofÏinstructing€the€jury€on€ð ðflightðð€as€showing€ð ðconscious‚ness€of€guilt.ðð€€In€Georgeððs€case,€there€wasÏevidence€that€the€potentially€culpable€third€party€fled€after€the€crime.€€George€persuaded€theÏappellate€court€that€in€these€circumstan‚ces€there€was€a€sua€sponte€duty€to€instruct€on€flight€asÏdemonstrating€consciousness€of€guilt€on€the€part€of€the€third€party.Ìà  àGeorge€reminds€us€that€artful€òòpackagingóó€of€issues€is€very€important.€€When€there€isnððtÐ 2‚" Ðauthority€directly€on€point,€weave€between€cases€which€are€helpful€to€construct€a€fluid€argument.€ÏIf€that€doesnððt€work,€then€grab€the€courtððs€interest€by€suggesting€that€itððs€an€issue€of€firstÏimpression.€€In€other€words,€do€whatever€you€can€to€make€the€issue€appear€more€appealing€andÏinteresting€to€the€reviewing€court.€€This€will€lead€you€to€obtain€more€reversals,€or€at€least€moreÏpublished€opinions.ñ/ñ׃×ñ/ññ/ñ׃*×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð #l, Ðà  àMark€Greenberg€has€a€global€approach€to€issue€spotting€that€is€a€complemen‚tary€converseÏto€the€approach€suggested€by€George€Schraer.€€Once€Mark€is€thoroughly€acquainted€with€the€factsÏof€the€case,€and€with€the€defense€theory€of€the€case€in€terms€of€guilt,€degree€of€culpability,€alibi,Ïaffirmative€defense,€etc.,€ð ðthen€òòanythingóó€that€somehow€interferes€with€the€effective€presentationÐ ¤(ô#4 Ðof€the€defense€theory€of€the€case€is€a€potential€issue.ðð€€This€is€especially€true,€Mark€reminds€us,Ïfor€jury€instruction€issues,€where€itððs€often€ð ðopen€seasonðð€even€without€an€objection.€€But€it€alsoÏholds€for€eviden‚tiary€issues€or€pretrial€motions,€even€when€not€too€ably€presented€or€preserved€byÏtrial€counsel.€€ÌÓ33€Óà8  àOnce€you€have€the€potential€issue,€then€you€just€play€with€it€until€you€get€it€intoÏpresentable€form.€€Sometimes€it€will€fit€an€already€defined€niche,€some‚times€youÏwill€have€to€work€it€out€by€analogy€to€another€defined€issue,€and€sometimes€youððllÏjust€have€to€push€the€envelope.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33Å8ÓÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌL+:ÓMark€requires€ð ðat€least€logical€coherenceðð€for€an€issue€for€which€there€is€no€authority€or€whereÏthere€is€contrary€authority€which€can€be€criticized€or€distinguished.ÌÌà  àCourtney€Ô_ÔShevelsonÔ_Ô€gives€another€version€of€this€same€approach,€focused€on€a€carefulÏreview€of€the€prosecutorððs€arguments€to€the€jury.ÌÓ33€Óà8  àClosing€arguments€frequently€highlight€how€what€looked€like€a€ho-humÏevidentiary€ruling€against€the€defense€actually€went€to€something€that€the€trialÏlitigants€thought€was€quite€important.€€The€arguments€of€counsel€can€also€revealÏthat€a€jury€instruction€as€given€and€as€used€by€the€DA€in€argument€did€notÏadequately€cover€the€law€that€was€actually€applicable€in€the€peculiarÏcircumstances€of€the€case.€€So,€when€I€hunt€through€the€arguments€for€DAÏexploitation€of€errors€that€I€have€already€decided€to€argue,€I€try€to€keep€my€eyesÏopen€for€ways€in€which€points€of€controversy€which€I€initially€thought€were€no€bigÏdeal€might€actually€have€made€a€difference€in€the€case.€€It's€kind€of€a€process€ofÏtrying€to€find€prejudice€in€the€DA's€argument€and€then€working€backwards€to€seeÏif€you€can€attach€the€prejudice€to€some€arguably€erroneous€evidentiary€ruling€orÏinstructional€omission.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33¸;ÓÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLu?Óà  àWhich€brings€us€back€to€the€theme€of€this€part€of€the€discussion:€prejudice€is€everything,Ïor€almost€everything,€for€most€appellate€issues.€€Find€the€weak€thread,€then€trace€it€back€to€theÏspot€where€you€can€pull€it€to€unravel€the€conviction.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌL@Ó3.à  àò òJury€Instructions€and€the€ð ðStealth€Jurorððó ó.ñ/ñ׃×ñ/ññ/ñ׃+×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð Ê'#+ Ðà  àStephen€Greenberg€has€another€very€creative€issue€spotting€approach€which,€like€theÐ 2)‚$- Ðpreceding€ones,€focuses€on€strong€prejudice€arguments€as€the€key€to€locating€winning€issues.€€ÌÓ33€Óà8  àIn€reviewing€jury€instructions,€I€see€myself€not€as€a€defense€attorney,€but€as€aÏð ðstealthðð€juror€at€the€trial.€€By€ð ðstealth,ðð€I€mean€secretly€working€for€theÏprosecution€and€in€favor€of€conviction.€€My€goal€as€stealth€juror€is€to€find€what€isÏessentially€a€òòshortcutóó€to€conviction,€one€I€can€sell€to€my€fellow€jurors€so€we€canÐ c ³ Ðmore€easily€find€the€defendant€guilty€and€head€home.€€If€I€spot€such€a€shortcut€ð!ðÐ ~ Î Ðwhether€within€€a€single€instruction€or€across€several€in€combination€ð!ð€then€I€alsoÐ ™ é Ðneed€to€be€able€to€convince€my€fellow€jurors€that€my€interpretation€of€theÏinstructions€is€òòreasonableóó.ñ/ñ׃×ñ/ññ/ñ׃,×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€If€Iððve€gotten€that€far,€I€can€switch€back€to€my€role€asÐ Ï   Ðcriminal€defense€advocate€and€try€to€develop€an€argument€that€this€ð ðreasonableððÏshortcut€using€the€instructions€given€represents€an€instance€of€fundamentalÏinstructional€error.€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33mBÓÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLæFÓà  àIn€addition€to€the€òòEstelleóó€v.€òòMcGuireóórule€discussed€in€the€footnote,€Stephen€notes€twoÐ Ñ  Ðother€ð ðguiding€principlesðð€which€make€this€approach€fruitful:€that€the€concern€of€a€reviewingÏcourt€is€what€a€jury€of€laypersons€may€have€understood€the€court€to€have€meant€with€itsÏinstructions€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòCrosslandóó€(1960)€182€Cal.App.2d€113,€119);€and€that€jurors€are€not€lawÐ §÷ Ðstudents€with€an€independent€motive€for€legal€study,€but,€ð ðat€best€.€.€.€well„meaning€temporaryÏvisitors€attempting€to€comprehend€a€foreign€language.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòThompkinsóó€(1987)€195Ð k» ÐCal.App.3d€244,€251.)Ìà  àStephen€suggests€that€principles€of€òòstatutory€constructionóó€are€useful€guides€whenÐ / Ðundertaking€a€ð ðreasonableðð€interpretation€of€the€meaning€of€jury€instructions,€since€ð ðboth€areÏsupposed€to€be€based€on€principles€of€common€sense.ðð€€As€an€example€of€this,€Stephen€describesÏhow€he€used€legal€maxim€ð ðexpressio€unius€est€exclusio€alteriusðð€(i.e.,€Ô‡XoÛ XXXUXÔthat€a€specific€legislativeÐ U ¥" Ðgrant€of€power€implies€that€no€other€power€passesÔ#†XUXX XXoÛPK#ÔÔ‡XoÛ XXXUXÔ)€to€demonstrate€instructional€error.€€In€one€ofÐ ·!$ Ðhis€cases,€the€court€instructed€on€ð ðmotiveðð€as€probative€of€guilt€without€ever€telling€the€jury€thatÏevidence€of€motive€alone€was€insufficient€to€establish€guilt.€€A€number€of€other€instructionsÏgiven€to€the€jury€included€the€principle€that€particular€facts,€while€probative€of€guilt,€could€notÏalone€establish€it.€(See,€e.g.,€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòDewberryóó€(1959)€51€Cal.2d€548,€557€[instruction€as€toÐ ?'", Ðeffect€of€reasonable€doubt€between€first€and€second€degree€murder,€and€between€involuntaryÏmanslaughter€and€justifiable€homicide,€but€not€as€between€murder€and€manslaughter,€left€juryÏwith€clearly€erroneous€implication€that€the€rule€did€not€apply€to€latter€situation];€and€òòPeopleóó€v.òòÐ tÄ ÐSalasóó€(1976)€58€Cal.App.3d€460,€478€[when€generally€applicable€instruction€is€specifically€statedÐ Ö& Ðwith€respect€to€one€aspect€of€the€charge€and€not€repeated€with€respect€to€another,€theÏinconsistency€may€be€prejudicial€error].)Ìà  àThe€ð ðstealth€jurorðð€or€ð ðshortcut€to€convictionðð€approach€is€one€which€I€have€also€foundÏvery€helpful,€even€without€the€great€title€for€it.€€In€particular,€I€have€used€this€approach€wheneverÏa€judge€makes€an€ad€lib€response€to€questions€from€a€deliberating€jury.€€In€a€case€involving€aÏseries€of€sex€crimes€against€two€unconscious€victims,€where€my€client€and€two€other€men€wereÏalleged€perpetrators,€the€deliberating€jury€asked€whether€aiding€and€abetting€instructions€Ô#†XUXX XXoÛóK#ÔÔ‡XoÛ XXXUXÔð ðpertainÐ „Ô  Ðto€the€specific€act€(charge)€or€to€the€entire€series€of€events?ðð€€The€judgeððs€responses,€whichÏemphasized€that€the€instructions€applied€to€ð ðan€offense€or€offensòòesóó€.€.€.ðð€was€inadequate,€I€argued,Ð H˜ Ðbecause€it€failed€to€comprehend€the€reasonably€plain€meaning€of€the€juryððs€question,€whichÏasked,€in€effect,€ð ðIf€the€defendantððs€words€or€actions€somehow€contributed€to€criminal€conduct€byÏhis€accomplices,€does€his€conduct€make€him€guilty€only€as€to€the€act€he€intended€to€facilitate€orÏcommit,€ð ðthe€specific€charge,ðð€or€culpable€for€ð ðthe€entire€series€of€events,ðð€i.e.,€all€the€crimesÏcommitted€against€the€victims.Ô#†XUXX XXoÛFR#Ôñ/ñÔ‡ŠÁ‹‹ŠÁÔÔ#†ŠÁ‹‹ŠÁŠ[#Ôñ/ñÔ‡XoÛ XXXUXÔ€€From€this,€I€argued,€that€what€the€jury€really€wanted€to€knowÐ 2‚" Ðabout€was€derivative€liability€for€unintended€criminal€acts€under€the€ð ðnatural€and€probableÏconsequencesðð€doctrine.€Ô‡ˆ›E ˆ XXoÛÔ(òòÔ#†XoÛ X ˆˆ›E€V#ÔPeopleóó€v.€òòCroyóó€(1985)€41€Cal.3d€1,Ô‡ˆ›E ˆ XXoÛÔ€Ô#†XoÛ X ˆˆ›EñV#ÔÔ‡ˆ›E ˆ XXoÛÔ12,€fn.€5Ô#†XoÛ X ˆˆ›E4W#Ô.)Ô#†XUXX XXoÛ“U#ÔÔ‡XoÛ XXXUXÔ€€Thus,€I€contended,€theÐ öF& Ðcourtððs€response€to€the€jurors€erred€by€failing€to€inform€them€of€this€principle,€and€misleadinglyÏsuggested€to€them€that€any€conduct€by€defendant€intended€to€facilitate€any€of€the€charged€crimeÏmade€him€culpable€for€all€of€them€as€an€aider€and€abettor,€giving€them€a€very€convenient€shortcutÏto€conviction€on€all€charges.Ìà  àOf€course,€the€virtue€of€this€type€of€argument,€focused€on€a€juryððs€query€to€the€judge€and€aÏmisleading€or€erroneous€response,€is€that€the€prejudice€Ô#†XUXX XXoÛ¤W#ÔÔ‡XoÛ XXXUXÔprong€is€basically€a€slam€dunk,€sinceÐ `'°"2 ÐÔ#†XUXX XXoÛýY#ÔÔ‡XoÛ XXXUXÔð ðthere€is€no€category€of€instructional€error€more€prejudi‚cial€than€when€the€trial€judge€makes€aÐ Â($4 Ðmistake€in€responding€to€a€juryððs€inquiry€during€deliberations.ðð€(òòPeopleóó€v.€òòThompkinsóó,€òòsupraóó,€195Ð $*t%6 ÐCal.App.3d€at€pp.€252„253.)Ô#†XUXX XXoÛyZ#ÔÔ‡XoÛ XXXUXÔÐ †+Ö&8 Ї4.ò òà  àBut€then€Again€.€.€.€.€€Keeping€All€the€Balls€in€the€Air.ó óÐ ° Ðà  àAnother€part€of€Julie€Schumerððs€comments€suggest€another€important€rule€about€issueÏspotting,€argumentation,€and€the€finding€of€winning€issues.€€This€rule€can€well€be€expressed€inÏNew€York€parlance€as,€ð ðYa€never€know€òòwhereóó€itððs€gonna€come€from.ðð€€Julie€reminds€us€not€toÐ Ü, Ðprejudge€an€issue€because€you€think€itððs€weak€or€has€no€meaningful€chance€of€winning,€notingÏtwo€reversals€she€recently€obtained€on€issues€she€felt€were€not€that€good€involving€wrongfulÏadmission€of€prior€bad€acts.ÌÓ33€Óà8  àThey€werenððt€so€bad€as€not€to€raise€them€but€they€were€clearly€not€winners€in€myÏestimation€based€on€how€we€know€the€courts€function€today€plus€a€huge€reservoirÏof€past€experience€with€the€same€issue.€€Yet€for€reasons€that€remain€obscure€toÏme,€I€won€on€both€issues.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33Ž^ÓÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLæ_Óà  àIn€other€words,€the€obligation€to€raise€all€arguable€issues€is€more€than€just€an€emptyÏexercise€of€the€clientððs€due€process€right€to€effective€counsel€on€appeal,€or€a€mechanism€forÏpreserving€issues€for€federal€habeas€review.€€It€can€lead€to€reversals€and€helpful€remedies€for€yourÏclient.Ìà  àThis€reminded€me€of€my€one€and€only€unpublished€reversal€in€a€murder€case€some€yearsÏback.€€The€best€issue,€I€thought,€had€to€do€with€the€courtððs€failure€to€define€the€termÏð ðunconsciousðð€for€the€jury,€in€a€case€with€a€very€strong€unconsciousness€defense€that€had€lots€ofÏevidence€and€expert€opinion€to€support€it.€€Unfortunately,€the€issue€looked€pretty€hopeless€in€lightÏof€òòÔ#†XUXX XXoÛÜ[#ÔÔ‡XoÛ XXXUXÔÔ‡ˆ›E ˆ XXoÛÔPeopleóó€v.€òòClarkóó€(1993)€5€Cal.4th€950Ô#†ˆòˆ ˆˆ›Eòb#ÔÔ‡ˆ›E ˆˆˆòÔÔ#†XoÛ X ˆˆ›Ec#Ô,€which€rather€disingenuously€held€that€instructionsÐ &v# Ðgiven€to€the€jury€in€that€case€(and€in€my€case)€were€sufficient€to€define€ð ðunconsciousðð€for€theÏjury.€€There€were€two€other€issues€in€the€case,€misinstruction€on€intoxication€evidence,€andÏmisdescription€of€the€lesser€crime€of€involuntary€manslaughter€based€on€unconsciousness€asÏrequiring€general€criminal€intent€(when€it€really€is€based€on€a€negligence€standard).€€But€theseÏtwo€issues€looked€like€garden€variety€claims€which€appellate€courts€typically€slither€over€or€findÏharmless.€€Still,€I€briefed€all€three€issues,€doing€my€best€to€focus€the€prejudice€arguments€on€theÏstrength€of€the€unconsciousness€defense€in€the€case.€€To€my€great€surprise,€the€court€of€appealÏreversed€my€clientððs€murder€conviction€based€on€the€latter€two€issues.€€I€was€astonished.€€In€fact,ÏI€didnððt€even€orally€argue€the€case.€€It€was€noteworthy€that€the€court,€in€a€footnote,€afterÏacknowledging€that€there€was€not€clear€authority€for€the€requirement€of€an€instruction€definingÐ ,h'7 Ðunconsciousness,€ordered€the€trial€court€on€retrial€to€give€the€missing€instruction€definingÏunconsciousness.€€Ìà  àThereððs€three€lessons€from€that€case.€€The€first€harkens€back€to€the€discussion€above€aboutÏMark€Greenbergððs€approach€of€focusing€on€the€defense€theory€of€the€case,€then€workingÏbackwards€from€there€to€find€every€arguable€issue€which€relates€to€the€impairment€of€thatÏdefense.€€The€second€lesson€is€that€there€really€is€a€good€reason€to€carefully€and€rigorously€briefÏall€the€arguable€issues,€even€those€that€donððt€burn€a€hole€in€the€gut€or€donððt€seem€to€you€to€go€toÏthe€heart€of€the€case.€€And€the€third€is€that€when€youððve€got€an€issue€that€is€powerful€andÏcompelling,€and€goes€to€the€heart€of€defense€case,€but€which€seems€hemmed€in€by€adverseÏauthority,€try€to€find€a€way€to€raise€it€anyway.€€I€have€always€felt€that€the€compelling€issue€onÏwhich€I€òòcould€notóó€win€in€state€court€because€of€òòClarkóó€actually€led€to€the€favorable€result€on€theÐ „Ô  Ðother€issues.Ìà  àAnd€remember,€ð ðYa€never€know€where€itððs€gonna€come€from.ðð€€Alan€Siraco€put€thisÏamusingly€in€his€e„mail€response.€ð ðSometimes€I€feel€like€Don€Knotts€in€the€Reluctant€Astronaut.€ÏMy€failures€are€well„executed,€but€my€successes€are€rather€bumbling.ðð€Keep€plugging,€donððt€letÏthe€ð ðwell„executed€failuresðð€bother€you€too€much€(I€have€certainly€had€my€share€of€late),€andÏmake€sure€to€put€all€those€balls€in€the€air€and€not€drop€too€many.€€ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÈmÓC.€€ò òBe€Prepared,€Knowledgeable,€or€at€Least€Well€Connected.ó 󀀀РxÈ# Ðà  àEffective€issue€spotting€requires€a€reservoir€of€knowledge€and€experience€regarding€whereÏissues,€new€and€old,€can€be€found.€€Dallasððs€part€of€this€presentation€endeavors€to€give€you€anÏoutline€of€where€and€how€to€look€for€substantive€issues.€€My€contribution€here€is€to€suggest€thatÏspotting€and€developing€winning€issues€requires€you€to€know€what€you€òòdoóó€know,€and€know€whatÐ "V+ Ðyou€òòdonððtóó€know,€remembering,€of€course,€that€this€was€precisely€what€Socrates€defined€asÐ h#¸- Ðð ðwisdom.ðð€€Ìà  àEvery€effective€appellate€advocate€has€a€different€way€of€storing€and€retrieving€his€or€herÏissue€spotting€lore.€€Some,€like€Dallas€or€Brad€OððConnell,€keep€it€all€in€their€gray€lobes,€and€seemÏable€to€call€up€the€name€and€cite€of€the€key€case€at€the€drop€of€a€question.€€Others,€like€myÏcolleague€Jonathan€Grossman,€meticulously€organize€issues€and€key€cases€in€computer€filesÏand/or€index€cards.€€My€own€haphazard€storage€and€recall€system€is€harder€to€describe.€€I€mostlyÐ ´+'9 Ðuse€my€own€twenty„year€stock€of€old€briefs€and€five€years€worth€of€assistance€memos,€which€IÏconstantly€mine€for€issues€and€cases€that€sound€familiar€when€I€run€across€them.€€My€ownÏinternal€wiring€makes€it€hard€for€me€to€remember€names€of€useful€case€law€(let€alone€the€cites),Ïand€I€frequently€find€myself€remembering€that€I€did€brief€a€similar€issue€once,€but€unable€to€recallÏthe€name€of€the€case€in€which€I€did€it.ñ/ñ׃ ×ñ/ññ/ñ׃-×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Computers€make€this€process€easier,€allowing€me€to€doÐ 8 ˆ Ðword€searches€for€key€phrases€or€case€names,€both€from€my€own€materials€and€from€legalÏresearch€sources.€Ìà  àThe€key€is€knowing€yourself,€understanding€your€strengths€and€weaknesses€as€anÏappellate€advocate,€and€learning€to€use€your€textual,€electronic,€and€human€resourcesÏefficaciously€to€round€out€your€efforts.€€Ìà  àBy€all€accounts,€the€assistance€of€oneððs€colleagues€is€invaluable€to€this€part€of€issueÏspotting.€When€you€run€across€something€that€smells€wrong,€seems€unfair,€or€goes€to€the€heart€ofÏthe€case€against€or€for€your€client,€but€canððt€quite€figure€out€how€to€package€it€into€a€winnableÏappellate€issue,€itððs€time€to€run€it€by€a€knowledgeable€and€issue„sensitive€colleague.€€For€me€theseÏdays,€that€means€a€walk€down€the€hall.€€For€most€panel€lawyers,€it€takes€a€bit€more€effort€ð!ðÏmaking€a€phone€call,€sending€an€e„mail,€or€setting€a€time€to€go€across€town€(or€into€town)€to€talkÏin€person€with€a€fellow€practitioner.€€à À àOf€course,€we€at€SDAP€are€happy€to€try€to€play€thisÐ Ð   Ðrole€for€you€in€both€Assisted€and€Independent€cases.€€The€best€course,€though,€is€to€cultivateÏdialogue€with€friends€and€colleagues€who€balance€off€your€strengths.€€Some€people€haveÏencyclopedic€minds,€and€can€remember€cases€by€volume€number€when€you€mention€an€issue.€ÏOthers€are€strong€at€intuitive€thinking€or€linking€disparate€ideas€into€a€single€and€uniqueÏanalytical€twist;€and€there€are€a€few€who€have€balanced€strengths€in€both€these€areas.€€Know€whatÏyouððre€good€at,€and€where€you€need€input€from€others;€share€your€wisdom€and€talent€with€others,Ïand€reap€the€benefit€of€that€sharing.Ìà  àAlan€Ô_ÔSiracoÔ_Ô€makes€a€fine€point€about€this.ÌÓ33€Óà8  àMaking€a€living€at€what€we€do,€under€the€economic€pressures€of€AIDOAC€andÏGuidelines€requires€quick€assessments.€€I€often€feel€I€have€not€had€the€time€to€doÏall€the€research€I€want€on€a€spotted€issue.€€So,€effective€issue€spotting,€includingÐ x)È$4 Ðbriefing€those€issues€spotted,€requires€a€certain€feel€for€whatððs€valid.€€Most€of€usÏalso€do€this€in€a€relatively€isolated€setting.€€Brain‚storming€with€respectedÏcolleagues€is€an€invaluable€resource,€especially€in€cases€which€seem€to€reveal€noÏissues€or€an€issue€about€which€I€am€uncertain.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33ž{ÓÓ3³€ÓÌÓ€3³~ÓC.€€ò òReading€the€Record€the€Right€Way.ó ó€€Ð Á  Ðà  àThe€Gestalt€of€Issue€Spotting€also€has€its€nuts€and€bolts€component:€record€review.€€AÏnumber€of€my€e„mail€respondents€focused€in€on€this€part€of€the€appellate€advocacy€process€inÏgeneral,€and€on€their€own€methods€of€issue€spotting€in€particular,€as€integral€to€the€process€ofÏspotting€issues.Ìà  àHere€again,€it€is€clearly€important€to€figure€out€what€works€best€for€you.€€Some€appellateÏadvocates€adopt€an€approach€towards€record€review€which€emphasizes€reading€the€recordÏthrough€from€start€to€finish,€ð ðlike€a€screenplayðð€(Alan€Siraco),€or€ð ða€badly€constructed€mysteryÏnovelðð€(Kyle€Gee).€€Others,€like€Courtney€Shevelson€and€me,€will€begin€with€a€focus€on€key€partsÏof€the€record€ð!ð€closing€arguments€of€counsel,€jury€instructions,€pretrial€motions,€etc.€ð!ð€€as€a€wayÏof€getting€revved€up€for€the€issue€spotting€to€follow.€€Kat€Kozik€strongly€recommends€gettingÏcopies€of€police€reports€and€trial€opening€statements€as€adjunct€material€to€help€find€potentialÏappeal€and€habeas€issues.€€Lori€Klein€recommends€ð ðlistening€to€every€audiotape€and€viewingÏevery€videotape€that€the€jury€seesðð€in€connection€with€record€review.€€Ìà  àThe€central€idea€that€unites€all€these€suggestions€is€the€concept€that€record€review€is€theÏstarting€point€for€finding€issues,€and€requires€the€adoption€of€oneððs€own€developed€practices€forÏthoroughly€combing€through€a€record€while€keeping€fired€up€about€the€case€and€attentive€toÏfinding€potential€issues.€€We€didnððt€write€the€bad€novel€that€is€presented€to€us€in€the€form€of€theÏappellate€record.€€But€itððs€our€job€to€turn€it€into€a€thrilling€(or,€at€least,€readable)€story€about€òòwhatÐ «"û) Ðwent€wrongóó€in€the€story€of€our€clientððs€conviction.Ð  $]+ Ðà  àEveryone€has€different€approaches€to€record€review.€€Kyle€Gee€and€I€have€distinctiveÏways€of€working€through€an€appellate€record.€€Hopefully,€a€description€of€these€two€contrastingÏapproaches,€and€how€they€relate€to€the€art€of€issue€spotting,€will€be€helpful€to€your€own€efforts.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌL”†ÓÓ€Ó1.à0  àò òKyle€Geeððs€Approach:€Read€the€Bad€Novel€Straight€Through€and€Get€Organized!ó ó€€ÐÛ)+%4(#(# ÐÓ€½†ÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€h‡Óà  àKyle€likes€to€start€with€a€complete€ð ðblank€slateðð€about€the€case.€€He€begins€with€theÐ A+‘&6 Ðclerkððs€transcript€(CT)€review,€carefully€going€over€the€CT€contents€with€the€exception€of€theÏpreliminary€hearing€and€jury€instructions.€€From€this€he€develops€a€careful€chronology€and€writesÏa€draft€Statement€of€the€Case,€even€before€he€has€begun€reading€the€reporterððs€transcript€(RT),Ïbecause€he€finds€that€this€draft€of€the€Case€Statement€helps€him€get€the€scope€of€the€case€clear€inÏhis€mind.€€Kyle€does€a€very€cursory€skim€of€the€RT€at€this€point,€but€only€to€locate€any€requiredÏrecord€augmentations,€which€he€likes€to€get€out€of€the€way€before€beginning€the€RT€review€inÏearnest.€€Ìà  àFor€Kyle,€it€is€essential€to€have€large€blocks€of€time€for€getting€into€the€review€of€the€RT.€€ÌÓ33€Óà8  àI€read€all€of€the€RT€chronologically,€creating€a€RT€summary€containing€referencesÏto€both€the€evidence€and€the€potential€issues.€€The€exception€to€theÏ"chronological"€rule€is€that€I€never€begin€my€review€of€the€trial€transcript€byÏreading€the€DA's€opening€statement€(if€there€is€one).€€Other‚wise€I€read€the€trial€inÏthe€order€that€events€occurred.€€€Unlike€some€people,€I€never€read€the€argumentsÏfirst.€€I€prefer€to€see€what€I€think€the€evidence€shows,€and€what€instructions€theÏevidence€supports,€before€I€see€what€the€attorneys€felt€about€the€evidence.€€It€isÏonly€during€my€review€of€the€Reporter's€Transcript€of€the€instructions€that€I€alsoÏgo€through€the€instructions€as€they€appear€in€the€CT.€€[I€also€have€CALJIC€there€toÏdouble-check€for€deviations].Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33ΊÓÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLŽÓà  àKyle€describes€his€procedure€for€moving€from€record€review€to€issue€locating€after€he€hasÏcompleted€his€record€review€and€constructed€a€detailed€document€on€the€computer€containing€hisÏsummary€of€the€record.ÌÓ33€Óà8  àà ` àAfter€I€have€my€RT€summary,€I€do€a€lot€of€playing€with€that€file.€€ExceptÏin€very€short€cases,€I€will€split€the€RT€summary€into€two€files,€which€I€callÏ"RT-SF"€[Statement€of€Facts]€and€"RT-ISS"€[Issues],€even€though€these€tend€toÏoverlap€to€some€extent.€€€I€then€plow€through€"RT-ISS,"€creating€headings€forÏeach€individual€issue€and€sub-issue,€and€creating€a€topical€index€of€the€issues€andÏsub-issues.€€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àI€then€"carve€away"€from€"RT-ISS"€everything€that€I€believe€not€to€be€aÏvalid€issue,€dumping€those€parts€into€an€"ISS-OUT"€file.€€As€I€do€research,€otherÏissues€get€dumped€into€the€"ISS-OUT"€file€(this€file€is€useful€later€for€theÏ"unbriefed€issues"€portion€of€the€comp.€claim).€€This€is€not€always€a€one-wayÏstreet.€€Sometimes€issues€move€from€the€"ISS-OUT"€file€back€into€the€"RT-Ô_ÔISSÔ_Ô"Ïfile.Ðc+³&,Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àSomewhere€along€the€way€ð!ð€it€varies€from€case€to€case€when€this€occurs€ð!ðÏI€tackle€the€draft€of€the€Statement€of€the€Facts,€knowing€that€identifying€theÏpotential€issues€helps€focus€the€factual€summary,€and€that€the€drafting€of€theÏfactual€summary€tends€to€focus,€eliminate,€or€even€reveal€an€issue.€€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àI€usually€then€return€to€the€issues€and€arguments,€not€returning€to€the€SFÏuntil€the€arguments€are€largely€complete.€€The€last€part€is€usually€the€re-writing€ofÏthe€prejudice€arguments.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThis€is€the€way€I€like€these€things€to€go,€and€this€is€the€way€they€often€go.€ÏHowever,€there€are€100€variations€on€all€of€this,€depending€on€the€case,€itsÏcomplexity,€time€pressure€from€the€court,€and€ð!ð€of€course€ð!ð€the€compensationÏguidelines.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33ÓÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLS–Óà  àKyle€Geeððs€approach,€as€you€can€see,€is€very€organized,€and€relies€heavily€on€creatingÏcomputer€files€in€which€he€separates€the€two€key€parts€of€brief€writing€„„€the€fact€summary€andÏissue€development.€€For€Kyle,€this€makes€the€creative€process€work€best.€ÌÓ33€Óšà8  àà ` àI€can€only€stay€interested€and€focused€during€the€RT€review€if€I€read€it€likeÏa€badly€constructed€mystery€novel.€€If€I€read€the€ending€first€(the€arguments),€IÏtend€to€become€careless€in€reading€the€record.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àšI€like€to€start€the€record€review€with€a€blank€piece€of€mental€paper.€€I€feedÏthe€information€into€the€grinder€and€let€it€settle€into€a€back€mental€compartmentÏfor€a€while.€€Record€review€(and€drafting€the€SC)€is€the€information€input€phase.€ÏDoodling€on€the€screen€with€RT-ISS€and€ISS-OUT€is€just€a€way€of€movingÏeverything€to€the€front€of€my€mind€for€a€while.€€Somehow€it€works€for€me.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33Œ—ÓÓ™™€ÓÌÓ€™™ešÓÓ€Ó2.€à8  àò òThe€Robinson€Approach:€Selective€Skimming,€Deep€Review,€Diving€at€IssuesÐ ªú ÐWhen€You€Find€Them.ó ó€ÐšêÐ Ð  ÐÓ€ŽšÓÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€[›Óà  àMy€approach€is€more€haphazard€than€Kyleððs,€and€summarizing€it€may€do€nobody€anyÏgood.€€Yet,€ð ðsomehow€it€works€for€me.ððñ/ñ׃!×ñ/ññ/ñ׃.×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Here,€in€outline€form,€is€how€I€do€it.€€Ð b"²  ÐÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÈœÓa.€€à  àò òBefore€Doing€a€Thorough€Reading:€Peruse€Selectively.ó ó€€Ð  $Z# Ðà  àI€have€always€done€this.€€It€gets€me€fired€up,€and€takes€care€of€some€practical€detailsÏ(augmentations,€credit€issues)€early€on€in€the€game.€€Ð Ô&$"' Ðà  àPreliminarily,€I€note€that€itððs€common€to€come€across€apparently€meritorious€issues€in€theÏintroductory€review€of€the€record.€€I€have€learned€not€to€go€too€far€with€these€quickly€spottedÏissues.€€I€make€a€note€of€them,€dig€up€an€old€brief€or€read€a€case€to€familiarize€myself€with€theÏissue,€then€move€on.Ìà  àMy€preliminary€review€starts€with€the€Clerkððs€Transcript.€€I€first€go€to€the€back€of€theÏbook€to€look€at€the€Abstract€of€Judgment,€if€thereððs€a€prison€sentence,€or€the€minute€order€if€thereÏis€not.€€Many€times€there€are€obvious€sentencing€errors€or€potential€adverse€consequences€whichÏcan€be€spotted,€and€itððs€good€to€know€about€these€as€soon€as€possible.€€Also,€itððs€staggering€howÏmany€times€one€finds€obvious€credit€errors,€which€can€be€corrected€by€a€letter€to€the€court€whileÏyou€are€completing€record€review,€augmentation,€or€work€on€other€cases.€Ìà  àNext€Iððll€peek€at€the€appeal€notice.€€Every€once€in€a€while,€trial€counsel€will€comply€withÏhis€or€her€statutory€duty€under€Penal€Code€section€1240.1€and€list€the€potential€issues.€ÏSometimes€ð!ð€OK,€rarely€ð!ð€those€will€be€your€winning€issues.Ìà  àI€skim€through€any€and€all€motions€in€the€CT€ð!ð€€pretrial€1538.5€and€òòMirandaóó€motions,€inÐ ªú Ðlimine€or€other€trial€motions€(e.g.,€for€a€mistrial,€or€for€or€against€admission€of€evidence),€post„¼trial€motions€(new€trial,€plea€withdrawal,€òòRomeroóó,€etc.).€€Skimming€these€can€tell€you€a€lot€aboutÐ n¾ Ðthe€case€and€possible€issues,€and€also€give€you€a€good€ð ðheads€upðð€about€the€quality€(or€lackÏthereof)€of€the€representation€by€counsel.Ìà  àLastly,€I€skim€through€the€jury€instructions.€€The€idea€here€is€to€just€get€the€lay€of€the€land,Ïsaving€the€necessary€thorough€review€for€after€youððve€carefully€reviewed€the€RT€of€the€trial.€ÏKeep€an€eye€out€for€home„made€DA€instructions,€always€a€source€of€error€and€appellate€issues,Ïand€any€obvious€instructional€red€flags,€such€as€refusal€of€defense€requested€instructions€or€hotÏbutton€instructional€error€issues.Ìà  àI€skim€selective€parts€of€the€RT.€€I€read€over€the€sentencing€transcript,€fishing€for€obviousÏissues.€€In€jury€tried€cases,€I€skim€through€closing€arguments,€to€get€a€good€glimpse€of€ð ðwhatÏreally€matteredðð€to€the€prosecution€and€the€defense€in€the€case,€having€found€that€this€facilitatesÏissue€spotting.€€If€thereððs€a€denial€of€a€suppression€motion,€skim€through€the€RT€of€the€motion€toÏsee€what€happened€there€and€how€it€adds€to€the€potential€merits€of€the€issue,€or€whether€it€revealsÏa€potential€IAC€claim€regarding€presentation€of€the€motion.€€Ð h+¸&8 Ðà  àIn€short€record€and€guilty€plea€cases,€I€will€frequently€skim€through€the€whole€recordÏwithout€taking€detailed€notes.€€This€can€be€done€quickly€and€allows€me€to€flag€obvious€issuesÏ(e.g.,€òòWalkeróó€error€as€to€the€restitution€fines)€or€give€me€a€sense€that€the€case€is€probably€aÐ tÄ ÐòòWendeóó.Ð Ö& Ðà  àAs€noted€above,€I€typically€start€identifying€and€looking€into€potential€issues€during€theÏearly€record€perusal.€€I€list€possible€issues,€do€some€quick€research,€as€needed,€to€inform€myselfÏabout€the€possible€issue€(e.g.,€find€out€if€some€court€has€already€decided€your€clever€issueÏadversely),€but€try€not€to€get€too€attached€to€the€list€yet,€because€itððs€very€tentative€until€Iððve€doneÏa€thorough€record€review.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLŠ«Ób.€€ò òà  àThorough€Record€Reviewó ó€ò òð!ð€Now€Get€Seriousó ó.€€Ð h¸  Ðà  àA€detailed€review€of€the€record€and€very€careful€notes€are€the€key€to€good€issue€spotting,Ïas€well€as€to€being€able€to€write€effective€statements€of€the€facts€and€procedural€summaries.€Ï(Although€this€is€a€different€subject€than€the€present€one,€it€is€often€recognized€that€clear€andÏeffective€statements€are€key€to€strong€and€successful€appellate€work.)ÌÔ_ÔiÔ_Ô.€€ò òà  àThe€CTó ó.€Ð X¨ Ðà  àObviously,€thereððs€parts€of€the€CT€which€donððt€require€going€through€with€a€fine€toothedÏcomb.€€Hereððs€some€suggestions€as€to€what€requires€your€careful€and€detailed€attention:Ìà  àð"ð€€Read€the€Information€carefully;€then€look€at€the€jury€instructions€and€the€statutoryÏlanguage€involved.€€You€would€be€surprised€how€often€this€leads€to€potential€winning€issues.€ÏGet€very€curious€when€your€client€is€charged€with€a€crime€youððve€never€heard€of€or€dealt€with.Ìà  àð"ð€Reviewing€pretrial€minutes€is€one€of€the€dullest€parts€of€our€work,€and€skimming€isÏusually€good€enough.€€But€keep€your€eyes€open€for€unusual€proceedings,€motions,€òòMarsdensóó,Ð  "\+ Ðdenied€continuance€requests,€etc.€€There€may€be€potential€issues€(for€what€was€done€or€not€done),Ïand€bases€for€augmentation€of€the€record.Ìà  àð"ð€Trial€minutes€used€to€be€all€hand„written,€and€were€sometimes€a€great€challenge€toÏdecipher.€€They€are€usually€typed€these€days.€€I€strongly€recommend€reading€these€with€care.€ÏAlthough€it€can€be€a€dull€slog,€the€trial€minutes€give€you€an€outline€of€what€happened€and€areÏbristling€with€important€information€about€the€case.€€Minutes€can€flag€in€limine€issues,€402Ïhearings,€evidentiary€issues€during€trial,€instructional€disagreements,€misconduct€issues,Ð º+ '9 Ðdeliberations€problems,€etc.€€Ìà  àð"ð€If€I€have€skimmed€the€jury€instructions€already,€I€pass€over€them€during€the€moreÏdetailed€CT€review,€saving€a€more€careful€review€for€the€time€after€I€have€completed€the€RT€ofÏthe€trial.€€Take€a€careful€look€at€any€and€all€notes€from€the€jury€and€responses€by€the€trial€court.€ÏItððs€good€to€have€the€potential€issues€concerning€this€flagged€for€you€before€reading€the€RT.€Ìà  àð"ð€I€always€read€over€the€probation€report€(skipping€the€ð ðoffense€summaryðð€portion),Ïbecause€I€have€learned€by€experience€that€when€there€are€errors€in€sentencing,€restitution€fines,Ïvictim€restitution,€or€credits,€they€often€begin€with€the€probation€officerððs€report.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLàµÓii.€ò òà  àRT€Reviewó ó.€€Ð V  Ðà  àOnce€Iððm€at€this€point,€I€like€€approach€record€review€about€the€same€way€as€Kyle€Gee:Ïtry,€insofar€as€possible,€to€read€the€trial€RT€through€from€beginning€to€end.€€Of€course,€this€isÏrarely€possible.€€The€next€best€thing€is€to€make€sure€you€have€big€blocks€of€time€each€day,€orÏnearly€each€day,€to€get€through€the€record.€€Ìà  àI€canððt€say€enough€about€how€important€it€is€to€take€careful,€detailed€RT€notes.€€I€used€toÏtake€these€by€hand,€until€I€got€to€where€I€couldnððt€read€my€own€writing€any€more.€€Then€I€startedÏwriting€my€notes€in€a€computer€file.€€Lacking€the€necessary€third€hand,€this€turned€out€to€be€aÏmuch€bigger€chore,€but€produced€a€far€more€useful€set€of€notes€which€was€much€neater,€betterÏorganized,€and€far€more€easily€searchable.€€Ìà  àMy€notes€now€use€the€column€format,€with€page€numbers€on€the€narrow€left€column,€andÏsubstantive€notes€on€the€right.€€For€me,€note€taking€serves€three€purposes.€€First,€it€òòimprintsóó€in€myÐ B’' Ðmind€the€key€details€of€the€trial,€such€that€I€can€recall€most€key€facts€without€looking€at€my€notes.€ÏSecond,€the€notes€create€the€basis€for€the€Statement€of€Facts€which€I€will€later€write€using€the€RTÏnotes.€€And€third,€the€notes€are€the€place€where€I€start€to€flag€any€and€all€potential€issues.Ìà  àIn€taking€notes,€keep€in€mind€that€you€may€really€need€them€six€months€later,€when€youÏreturn€to€this€case€to€write€the€AOB€after€a€much„delayed€augmentation€and€several€extensionsÏbased€on€your€overwhelming€work€load.€€Your€notes€make€it€possible€for€you€not€to€have€toÏreread€much€of€the€record€in€order€to€write€your€statements€of€the€case€and€facts€and€prejudiceÏarguments.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLà¼Óiii.€€à  àò òJury€Instructionsó ó.€€Ð ú+J': Ðà  àMuch€has€been€said€on€this€subject€already,€but€it€can€never€be€enough.€€Go€through€allÏthe€key€instructions,€comparing€the€RT€version€with€the€CT€version,€and€both€with€CALJIC€andÏany€applicable€statute.€€Use€all€the€issue€spotting€tools€discussed€above,€and€remember€that€someÏridiculously€high€percentage€of€winning€issues€come€from€jury€instructions.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌL¹¾Óc.€€ò òà  àWhen€to€Draft€the€Fact€Summaryó ó.€€Ð ~ Î  Ðà  àThis€is€one€area€where€I€differ€in€my€approach€from€Kyle€Gee.€€I€resist€the€impulse€toÏbegin€a€draft€the€Statement€of€Facts€until€after€I€have€a€solid€handle€on€the€issues€I€plan€to€raiseÏon€appeal,€and€a€good€sense€of€which€issues€have€the€strongest€chance€of€success.€€(Of€course,Ïthat€often€means€itððs€months€after€record€review;€but€then€my€detailed€notes€bail€out€my€flaggingÏmemory.)Ìà  àFor€me,€the€Fact€Statement€and,€to€a€lesser€extent,€the€Statement€of€the€Case,€should€notÏjust€support€your€substantive€arguments,€but€actually€make€the€arguments€for€you€wheneverÏpossible.€€As€an€example,€imagine€you€have€a€murder€case€where€the€focus€of€the€defense€case€asÏpresented€at€trial€was€alibi€and€identification.€€Imagine€further€that€after€you€have€reviewed€theÏrecord€and€done€some€research,€you€determine€that€this€defense€was€incredibly€weak,€dependingÏon€pretty€hopeless€credibility€contests,€but€that€there€was,€at€the€same€time,€a€rather€poor€caseÏpresented€by€the€prosecution€for€first€degree€murder,€with€a€number€of€strong€arguable€issuesÏconcerning€the€failure€to€give€required€instructions€on€lesser€degrees€or€crimes,€or€confusingÏinstructions€on€elements€of€crimes€or€lessers.€€Your€Fact€summary€should,€of€course,€discuss€theÏidentification€and€alibi€testimony;€but€if€you€are€doing€little€or€nothing€with€that€defense€in€termsÏof€issues€presented,€you€want€the€emphases€of€your€Fact€summary€to€be€on€the€weakness€of€theÏproof€that€the€crime€was€premeditated,€felony€murder,€or€what€have€you.€€You€want€the€reader€toÏfinish€the€Statement€of€Facts€thinking,€òòthat€was€a€pretty€weak€first€degree€murder€case!óó€€OfÐ h#¸- Ðcourse,€until€you€have€identified€the€issues€and€assessed€their€strength,€you€wonððt€know€this,€andÏa€Fact€statement€drafted€before€this€would€have€to€be€substantially€reworked.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLrÆÓd.€€ò ò€Flagging€and€Developing€the€Issues.ó ó€€Ð Ô'$#4 Ðà  àWhen€and€how€do€I€flag€issues€during€record€review?€€Itððs€a€bit€quirky.€€I€suppose€that€IÏutilize€a€ð ðstewðð€composed€of€many€of€the€practices€described€by€my€e„mail€contributors€above.€ÏIf,€during€review€of€the€RT€or€CT,€anything€appears€of€interest€in€the€trial€ð!ð€a€bad€evidentiaryÐ ,P': Ðruling,€a€bit€of€obvious€ineptitude€by€counsel€in€not€objecting€to€damaging€evidence,€etc.€ð!ð€I€putÏlittle€asterisks€[**]€next€to€the€notes€about€what€happened.€€This€allows€me€to€later€search€for€theÏasterisks€to€relocate€the€possible€issues€and€assemble€a€list€of€flagged€subjects€for€further€inquiry.€ÏMy€review€of€jury€instructions€will€produce€òòlotsóó€of€little€asterisks€and€potential€issues.€€Most€ofÐ Ö& Ðthese€disappear€before€the€AOB€is€filed,€but€sometimes€the€kookiest€whims€can€turn€into€the€bestÏissues.Ìà  àIn€the€old€days,€Iððd€take€my€annotated€handwritten€record€notes€with€asterisks€and€headÏover€to€the€local€law€library.€€Nowadays,€I€mix€research€and€issue€development€in€with€recordÏreview.€€If€an€issue€seems€interesting€or€promising€from€the€RT,€Iððll€dig€right€in€and€check€it€out,Ïusing€Lexis,€my€personal€brief€and€assist€memo€bank,€LaFave,€Witkin,€FORECITE,€or€whateverÏresource€works€best€to€get€me€some€kind€of€handle€on€the€possible€issue.€€I€will€also€talk€over€theÏpossible€issue€with€a€colleague.€€Frequently,€I€will€put€the€results€of€this€preliminary€research€intoÏthe€RT€notes,€then€return€to€that€part€of€my€notes€as€I€develop€the€issue€further.€€Of€course,€issuesÏwill€drop€away€during€this€process,€and€new€ones€will€show€up.ñ/ñ׃"×ñ/ññ/ñ׃/×ñ/ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ªú Ðà  àWhen€Iððm€done€with€record€review,€and€the€preliminary€research€Iððve€done€with€it,€IÏgenerally€print€out€my€record€review€summary,€then€go€through€it€page€by€page,€making€a€longÏlist€of€all€potential€issues,€copying€and€pasting€whatever€notes€Iððve€already€taken€and€tidying€thisÏup€a€bit.€€Issues€will€drop€off€at€this€point,€or€be€followed€by€the€parenthetical€note€ð ð(WEAK)ðð.€€Ìà  àLately€I€have€taken€to€creating€separate€Word€Perfect€files€for€each€issue,€both€to€organizeÏthe€issue€into€a€coherent,€sequential€argument,€and€to€accumulate€and€sort€my€research.€€I€do€a€lotÏof€cutting€and€pasting€from€key€cases€found€on€Lexis,€portions€of€which€often€end€up€beingÏquoted€or€paraphrased€in€the€arguments€in€the€AOB.Ìà  àBrief€writing,€of€course,€is€a€related€but€separate€topic,€which€I€wonððt€try€to€cover€here.€ÏBut€there€is€one€last€subject€about€AOB€issue€spotting€which€must€be€mentioned€here.Ð ~$Î. ÐÓÌL€ÓÌÔ_ÔÓ€ÌLkáÓE.Ô_Ô€€Ô_Ôà8  àò òKeepingÔ_Ô€the€Issue€Spotting€Magic€Alive€after€Youððve€Filed€the€AOBó ó.ò ò€€Ô_Ôó óÐöFÐ Ð  Ðà  àAfterÔ_Ô€writing€an€AOB,€I€end€up€feeling€as€exhausted€as€Zeus€after€Athena€burst€out€of€hisÏbrain€fully€formed.€€The€last€thing€you€want€to€do,€at€least€until€you€get€the€AGððs€brief,€is€workÏon€new€issues€in€the€case.€€Yet€experience€has€shown€that€it€is€common€for€great€issues€to€revealÏthemselves€to€you€after€the€AOB€is€filed.ÌÔ_Ôà  àThus,Ô_Ô€the€ð ðardor€and€humilityðð€of€issue€spotting,€the€spirit€of€curiosity€and€zealous€effortÏfor€the€client,€must€continue€post„AOB.€€When€you€see€a€case€in€the€advance€sheets€which€makesÏyou€think,€ð ðMy€God!€Why€didnððt€I€raise€that€in€the€Smith€case?ðð€go€for€it!€€Do€thorough€research.€ÏAnd€donððt€ever€be€afraid€to€ask€leave€to€file€a€Ô_Ôsupplemen‚talÔ_Ô€brief€because€you,€well,€missed€itÏfirst€time€through.€€I€have€done€it€many€times,€and€have€yet€to€have€a€motion€denied,€or€beÏnotified€by€the€State€Bar€that€the€Court€of€Appeal€has€reported€me€for€my€ineptitude€ab€initio.€€InÏany€case,€even€if€appellate€judges€and€clerks€think€Iððm€a€lightweight€for€this,€so€be€it.€The€point€isÏto€get€the€relief€my€client€is€entitled€to,€or€to€raise€and€preserve€an€possible€winning€federalÏhabeas€claim.ÌÔ_Ôà  àAlanÔ_Ô€Siraco€provides€two€great€example€of€how€this€can€work€in€practice.€€ÌÓ33€ÓÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` àWarÔ_Ô€story:€€Years€ago,€in€an€assisted€criminal€case,€I€suffered€a€publishedÏloss.€€I€got€a€call€from€Mark€Harvis€at€the€LA€Public€Defender,€who€in€reading€theÏadvance€sheet,€noticed€that€my€client€was€arrested€for€possession€of€ValiumÏwithout€a€prescription.€€He€told€me€he€had€won€demurrers€on€the€argument€thatÏthis€was€not€illegal€in€California,€though€it€was€a€federal€offense.€€So,€I€took€thisÏissue,€unspotted€by€trial€counsel,€assisting€project€staff€and€myself,€and€parleyed€itÏinto€a€reversal€through€a€petition€for€rehearing€and€habeas€petition.Ð Ð Ð  ЀÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` àMoral:Ô_Ô€take€nothing€for€granted;€check€the€elements€of€every€offense€andÐ w!Ç& Ðthe€language€of€every€jury€instruction,€and€don't€assume€issue€spotting€is€doneÏonce€the€AOB€is€filed.Ð Ð Ð  ЀÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` àAnotherÔ_Ô€war€story.€€In€a€dependency€case,€there€was€a€potential€issueÐ È$ ) Ðregarding€my€client€erroneously€being€denied€"presumed"€father€status.€€TrialÏcounsel€felt€she€had€set€it€up€well,€but€I€thought€the€facts€weren't€there.€€MyÏproject€buddy€convinced€me€that€a€thin€thread€existed,€enough€to€pass€through€theÏfrivolous€filter.€€So,€I€reluctantly€briefed€it€ð!ð€to€a€panel€that€had€recently€rejectedÏthe€same€claim,€and€which€previous€rejection€had€been€taken€up€the€CaliforniaÏSupreme€Court€by€that€time.€€We€lost,€but€for€different€reasons.€€A€petition€forÐ j+º&/ Ðrehearing€addressing€those€different€reasons€resulted€in€a€180€degree€switch€and€aÏreversal€for€my€client.Ð Ð Ð  ЀÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` àMoral:Ô_Ô€€sometimes,€it's€not€so€much€the€spotting€of€the€issue€as€tenaciouslyÐ æ6 Ðhanging€onto€it.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ€33¼çÓÓÌL€ÓÌÔ_ÔÓ€ÌLäïÓà  àOfÔ_Ô€course,€itððs€generally€best€to€raise€post„AOB€issues€in€a€supplemental€brief,€to€forestallÏthe€problem€of€procedural€default€from€presenting€issues€for€the€first€time€in€a€reply€brief€orÏrehearing€petition.€€However,€when€itððs€too€late€for€a€supplemental€brief,€donððt€quit;€find€a€way€toÏraise€the€issue€somehow€via€rehearing,€a€motion€to€recall€the€Ô% €# Ôremittitur,€or€even€a€pro€per€habeasÏyou€prepare€for€your€client€alleging€appellate€IAC.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÔ_ÔÓ€ÌL òÓF.Ô_Ô€€Ô_Ôò òà  àHabeasÔ_Ô€Issue€Spotting€„„€Expanding€the€Ô_ÔHorizonó ó.Ð ’â  Ðà  àÔ_ÔÔ_ÔInÔ_Ô€many€senses,€the€spotting€of€potential€habeas€issues€tends€to€fit€into€the€ð ðstinkðð€testÏformula€discussed€above,€but€on€a€wider€playing€field.€€In€a€habeas,€for€example,€an€unexplainedÏfailure€to€object€to€damaging€and€improper€evidence€or€instructions€creates€fertile€grounds€for€anÏarguable€issue.€€ÌÔ_Ôà  àAnd,Ô_Ô€as€Kat€Kozik€reminds€us,€the€possibility€of€a€habeas€claim€gives€rise€to€new€ways€ofÏspotting€issues.€€While€you€are€confined€on€direct€appeal€to€issues€that€can€be€found€throughÏcareful€review€of€the€record,€Katððs€issue€spotting€suggestions€show€how€these€limits€change€forÏhabeas€cases.ÌÔ_ÔÓ33€ÓÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` à(1)Ô_Ô€Get€and€review€as€many€materials€about€the€case€as€you€can,€includingÏopening€statements€for€any€possible€reason,€and€the€police€report,€because€youÏmight€be€delightfully€surprised€at€what€you€find.€€Never€underestimate€theÏpossibility€that€trial€counsel€failed€to€investigate€something€really€obvious€and/orÏthe€DA€suppressed€favorable€info.€€One€of€our€roles€is€to€uncover€obviousÏmistakes.€€The€more€obvious,€the€easier€to€get€relief.€€Ð Ð Ð  Ѐ€Ô_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` àHereððsÔ_Ô€an€example€of€how€review€of€an€opening€statement€led€to€a€winnerÐ ¬#ü( Ðin€one€of€my€earliest€cases.€€The€client€complained€bitterly€about€IAC€for€failureÏto€call€defense€witnesses€and€for€many€other€things.€€In€an€augment€motion,€IÏthrew€in€that€I€wanted€the€defense€attorney's€opening€statement€because€ofÏnumerous€IAC€allegations€by€the€client€ð!ð€€a€very€general€request.€€The€openingÏstatement€was€added€to€the€record€(perhaps€because€it€was€one€of€several€itemsÏrequested€and€I€had€articulated€better€cause€for€getting€the€others).€€I€wasÏdelightfully€surprised€to€discover€that€defense€counsel€promised€in€his€opening€toÐ i+¹&/ Ðproduce€witnesses€he€never€called€at€trial,€and€found€case€law€holding€that€such€aÏ"broken€promise"€to€the€jury€is€a€special€type€of€IAC€because€of€the€terribleÏimpression€it€creates.€€(I€wasn't€expecting/suspecting€this€when€making€theÏaugment€request€ð!ð€the€client€had€just€complained€about€the€failure€to€present€theÏwitnesses,€not€the€broken€promise€angle.)€€We€presented€a€writ€alleging€IAC€forÏfailure€to€present€the€defense€witnesses€and€IAC€for€failing€to€do€so€afterÏpromising€to.€€The€client€ultimately€won€in€federal€court€on€the€second€claim.€€TheÏcourt€said€it€wouldn't€have€second„guessed€the€failure€to€present€the€witnesses€ifÏthe€omission€were€judged€on€a€clean€slate,€but€that€the€broken€promise€to€the€juryÏwas€inexcusable.€€I€felt€that€getting€the€opening€statement€and€discovering€theÏbroken€promise€in€it€was€a€stroke€of€luck€at€the€time.€€But€now€I€know€to€look€forÏthis€issue.Ð Ð Ð  ЀÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` àAnotherÔ_Ô€example€involving€a€Police€Report€shows€the€extent€of€someÐ ôD  Ðdefense€attorneysðð€failure€to€investigate!€€My€client€was€prosecuted€for€sellingÏdrugs€to€a€buyer€in€front€of€a€drug€house.€€The€buyer€was€arrested€near€the€sceneÏand€wound€up€testifying€against€my€client€(ID'ing€him€as€the€seller)€in€exchangeÏfor€immunity.€€The€client€complained€about€IAC€for€many€reasons,€so€I€got€theÏpolice€report€to€assess€his€complaints.€€His€complaints€didn't€pan€out.€€But€theÏpolice€report€contained€a€wonderful€surprise€that€was€the€basis€for€some€veryÏstrong€IAC/òòBradyóó€issues:€€it€said€that€the€buyer's€blood€was€drawn€at€the€policeÐ ± Ðstation€after€his€arrest€and€was€sent€to€the€drug€lab€(he€probably€looked€high€to€theÏarresting€officers).€€This€was€news€to€me€ð!ð€not€mentioned€by€the€client,€not€inÏevidence€at€trial.€€Trial€counsel€didn't€bother€to€find€out€the€results€of€the€lab€test.€ÏThe€DA€didn't€disclose€them€to€the€defense.€€The€lab€sent€me€the€results:€€positiveÏfor€drugs.€€It€would€have€been€nice€if€the€jury€had€known€this€in€order€to€assess€theÏwitness's€ability€to€ID€my€client.€€€€Ð Ð Ð  ЀÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` à2)Ô_Ô€Ask€"what€if"€questions€and€hypothesize€answers€favorable€to€the€client,Ð n!¾ Ðthen€see€if€you€can€discover€the€favorable€information€with€some€investigation.€ÏSometimes,€what€you€ultimately€find€is€useful€for€a€purpose€other€than€the€oneÏthat€originally€motivated€the€investigation.€€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` àIÔ_Ô€had€a€shooting€case€where€the€house€where€the€shooting€occurred€hadÏbeen€boarded€up€at€the€time€of€trial€and€abandoned.€€No€one€knew€why.€€My€clientÏkept€saying€the€place€was€a€drug€house€and€the€people€who€lived€there€had€beefsÏwith€lots€of€folks€who€could€have€been€the€shooters.€€The€defense€elicited€that€theÏhouse€was€a€filthy€dilapidated€pit,€but€got€denials€from€the€DA€witnesses€aboutÏany€connection€to€drugs.€€I€wondered€if€the€government€might€have€shut€the€placeÐ a+±&# Ðdown€as€a€drug€house,€hence€the€boarded€up€windows.€€I€made€a€public€recordsÏrequests.€€Turned€out€that€the€police€department€and€city€inspectors€condemnedÏthe€building€as€a€nuisance/blight€because€of€its€dilapidatedÏcondition/garbage/pests€and€forced€the€occupants€to€move.€€There€was€no€hardÏevidence€of€it€being€a€drug€house.€€End€of€story?€€No!€€The€police€department€is€anÏ"arm"€of€the€prosecution€team.€€It's€shutting€down€the€building€and€forcing€theÏoccupants€to€move€six€months€before€my€client's€trial€undermined€the€DA's€claimÏthat€the€prosecution€exercised€due€diligence€in€going€to€the€condemned€house€twoÏweeks€before€trial€and€expecting€to€find€a€witness€still€living€there.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€due€diligence€and€let€the€witness's€prelim€testimony€be€read€to€the€jury.€€IÏfiled€a€writ€raising€IAC/Brady€error€for€the€info€not€coming€out€at€the€dueÏdiligence€hearing.€€€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ€33´õÓÓÌL€ÓÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ€ÌL Óà  àKatððsÔ_Ô€ð ðwhat€ifðð€approach€is€crucial€for€good€habeas€issue€spotting,€as€can€be€seen€byÏlooking€at€the€subject€of€expert€testimony.€€Have€you€ever€read€over€a€record€and€asked€yourselfÏwhy€in€the€world€defense€counsel€failed€to€get€an€expert€to€testify€as€to€some€key€aspect€of€theÏcase?€€It€happens€to€me€all€the€time.€€This€aspect€of€the€ð ðsomething€stinksðð€test€can€be€turned€intoÏa€winning€issue.€€For€example,€in€a€case€with€weak€eyewitness€identification€evidence,€where€aÏnumber€of€recognized€factors€suggest€possible€misidentification,€the€failure€to€call€an€eyewitnessÏidentification€expert€to€testify€as€allowed€under€òòPeopleóó€v.€òòMcDonaldóó€(1984)€37€Cal.3d€351€canÐ †Ö Ðoften€amount€to€IAC.€€ÌÔ_Ôà  àOr,Ô_Ô€as€happened€to€me€a€few€years€back,€a€defense€expert€may€testify€in€a€case,€but€leaveÏyou€wondering€why€counsel€didnððt€pursue€what€looked€like€an€obvious€area€for€inquiry€with€theÏexpert.€€In€my€case,€the€charges€involved€sex€with€unconscious€teenage€victims;€there€wasÏevidence€of€physical€injuries€to€the€victims€consistent€with€sex€on€an€unconscious€person,€butÏalso€strong€evidence€of€PCP€use€by€the€victims.€€The€defense€was€that€the€victims€werenððtÏunconscious€and€had€consensual€sex.€The€expert,€Dr.€Stephen€Pittel,€was€used€to€prove€that€theÏvictims€couldnððt€have€instantly€passed€out€as€they€claimed€based€on€a€dose€of€PCP€in€their€mixedÏdrinks.€€However,€Dr.€Pittel€was€never€asked€if€the€victimððs€injuries€to€their€anal€and€vaginal€areaÏcould€have€been€consistent€with€consensual€sex€while€under€the€influence€of€PCP,€a€drug€whichÏboth€reduces€inhibitions€and€causes€a€person€under€its€influence€to€basically€feel€no€pain.€€When€IÏspoke€with€Dr.€Pittel,€he€advised€me€that€this€subject€had€never€been€covered€with€defenseÐ +n&1 Ðcounsel,€and€had€strong€substantive€merit,€but€that€he€was,€in€fact,€unaware€of€the€victimsððÏinjuries.€€So,€I€had€a€habeas.€(Which€I€lost€in€the€Sixth€District,€but€may€win€in€federal€court.)ÌÔ_Ôà  àHabeasÔ_Ô€issue€spotting€gives€you€a€chance€to€think€like€a€good€trial€lawyer,€and€figure€outÏwhat€defenses€should€have€been€explored€and€developed,€but€werenððt.€€ÌÔ_Ôà  àCarefulÔ_Ô€record€review€also€can€lead€to€finding€winning€habeas€issues.€€Lori€Klein€notesÏthat€she€ð ðlistens€to€every€audiotape€and€view€every€videotape€that€the€jury€sees,ðð€and€gives€anÏexample€of€how€careful€record€review€of€an€audio€tape€led€her€to€a€winning€habeas€issue.ÌÔ_ÔÓ33€ÓÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` àListeningÔ_Ô€to€and€viewing€tapes€does€several€things:€(1)€it€brings€the€ð ðcoldððÏtranscript€to€life,€often€in€unexpected€ways;€(2)€it€alerts€me€to€issues€that€I€mightÏnot€have€noticed€had€I€not€looked€at/listened€to€that€evidence;€and€(3)€it€generallyÏincreases€my€sensitivity€to€the€whole€flow€of€a€case,€so€that€I€am€more€likely€toÏpick€up€something€that€ð ðsmells€bad.ðð€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôà ` àFurthermore,Ô_Ô€I€do€this€whether€I€am€familiar€with€the€language€on€the€tapeÏor€not.€€This€resulted€in€a€huge€pay-off€in€Sunny€Nguyenððs€appeal€ð!ð€I€listened€toÏthe€taped€police€interrogation,€including€the€part€at€the€begin‚ning€that€was€(in€part)Ïin€Vietnamese.€€During€my€review,€I€noticed€that€there€were€two€distinct€voices€onÏthe€tape,€and€I€could€sense€that€this€part€of€the€tape€was€not€as€ð ðinaudibleðð€as€theÏreporters€had€said.€€This€ultimately€led€(with€some€luck)€to€the€reversal€of€theÏconvictions€against€him.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ€33£ÓÓÌL€ÓÌÔ_ÔÓ€ÌLGÓWell,Ô_Ô€it€was€only€part€luck.€€Lori€scoured€around€and€found€a€Vietnamese€speaking€radioÏbroadcaster€from€Southern€California€who€was€able€to€both€enhance€the€tape€and€translate€it€intoÏEnglish€for€her.€€It€turned€out€that€the€ð ðinaudibleðð€portion€was€clear€enough€to€be€translated,€andÏinvolved€very€favorable€defense€evidence.€€So,€a€hunch€from€listening€to€an€original€tapeÏrecording€in€a€language€which€Lori€could€not€understand€at€all€led€to€a€winning€issue.€ÌÔ_Ôà  àHabeas,Ô_Ô€of€course,€is€a€vast€subject.€€However,€I€hope€the€above€suggestions€will€help€youÏto€come€up€with€winning€issues€in€this€critical€area€of€appellate€Ô_Ôwork.ÌÔ_ÔÓÌL€ÓÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ€ÌLTÓÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôò òà@$ìàCONCLUSIONó óÔ_Ô€€Ô_ԈРÜ%,!* Ðà  àIÔ_Ô€hope€this€somewhat€haphazard€tour€through€the€Gestalt€of€issue€spotting.€€If€it€has€givenÏyou€some€useful€tips.€€€If€it€will€help€to€energize€your€efforts€for€our€clients€in€this€crucial€part€ofÏour€work€as€criminal€appellate€advocates,€then€it€was€worth€the€Ô_Ôeffort.ÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ#†XUXX XXoÛf#ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÐ  j+º&2 ÐÔ_Ôà@••)ìàII.ˆÌñ-ñÓ€Óñ-ñÔ_Ôñ,ñÌñ,ñò òÔ_Ôà@µ µ ìàA€SUGGESTED€APPROACH€FOR€FINDING€ISSUESˆÐ b Ðà@ìàIN€SELECTED€SUBJECT€AREASˆÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôó óÔ_Ôñ.ññ-ñÓ€ÿ(Óñ-ññ.ññ.ñÓ€d ÓÓ€€Óñ.ñÌÔ_ÔÔ_Ôñ.ñÓ€€­!Óñ.ñÓ  ÓÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àThere€is€no€magic€potion€which€will€enable€an€appellate€lawyer€to€spot€issues.€€However,Ïthere€are€certain€basic€attributes€which€are€shared€by€the€best€appellate€attorneys.Ìà  àFirst,€a€skilled€appellate€lawyer€is€necessarily€a€knowledgeable€lawyer.€€In€order€to€be€aÏcompetent€practitioner,€a€lawyer€must€read€the€new€published€opinions€as€soon€as€they€are€issued.ÏThis€can€be€done€by€subscribing€to€a€daily€legal€newspaper€or€by€reviewing€the€opinions€on€theÏÔ_ÔAOCÔ_Ôððs€website€(Ô4‚ Ý ŸÔÝ‚ ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôwww.courtinfo.ca.gov).Ô6e$ÔÝ‚ ÍOy$ƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý Ã§$Ô€€The€true€professional€will€review€the€new€opinions€aÐ Jš  Ðsecond€time€when€they€are€published€in€the€advance€sheet.€€In€this€way,€a€point€that€was€missed€onÏthe€first€reading€will€be€noted€on€the€second€perusal€of€the€opinion.Ìà  àSecond,€a€skilled€lawyer€òòneveróó€assumes€the€infallibility€of€his€own€knowledge.€€The€criminalÐ pÀ Ðlaw€is€an€incredible€laboratory€of€experimentation€in€which€statutory€schemes€are€ever€changing.€ÏThus,€a€lawyer€must€always€reexamine€the€relevant€statutes€in€a€case€since€they€may€have€beenÏamended€since€the€lawyer€last€read€them.Ìà  àThird,€the€best€lawyers€are€those€who€constantly€reassess€their€own€understanding€of€the€law.€ÏAlthough€a€lawyer€may€believe€that€he€fully€understands€the€governing€principle€in€a€particular€areaÏof€the€law,€it€may€be€necessary€to€change€oneððs€understanding€in€order€to€advance€a€new€issue.Ìà  àFourth,€and€most€importantly,€an€appellate€lawyer€must€have€the€capacity€to€view€the€law€asÏa€horizontal€mosaic€rather€than€as€a€vertical€structure.€€The€fabric€of€the€law€fits€together€in€piecesÏjust€like€a€jigsaw€puzzle.€€While€the€uninformed€may€believe€that€the€law€can€be€organized€in€aÏRoman€numeral€outline,€it€cannot.€€The€concrete€thinker€will€fail€as€an€appellate€lawyer.€€It€is€onlyÏby€viewing€the€law€as€a€whole€that€issues€can€be€spotted.€€An€example€of€this€approach€is€as€follows.Ìà  àUnder€California€law,€the€crime€of€theft€can€be€committed€in€any€number€of€ways€(e.g.Ïlarceny€by€trick,€embezzlement,€false€pretenses,€etc.).€€Each€of€the€methods€has€different€elements.€ÏHowever,€the€rule€has€evolved€that€an€error€in€instructing€the€jury€on€the€wrong€form€of€theft€doesÏnot€require€reversal€if€there€is€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€conviction€on€any€theory.€€(SeeÏòòPeople€v.€Countsóó€(1995)€31€Cal.App.4th€785,€791„794€and€cases€cited€therein.)€€Reference€to€otherÐ )à$5 Ðlegal€principles€reveals€a€logical€flaw€in€this€conclusion.Ð ò*B&7 Ðà  àUnder€the€Fifth€Amendment,€a€judgment€may€not€be€upheld€unless€the€jury€has€made€aÏfinding€that€ð ðððevery€element€of€the€crimeðððð€is€supported€by€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€Ï(òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ô€v.€New€Jerseyóó€(2000)€530€U.S.€466,€477.)€€In€this€context,€there€must€be€a€congruenceÐ tÄ Ðbetween€the€offense€alleged€in€the€charging€document€and€the€juryððs€verdict.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð Ö& Ðà  àIn€assessing€the€nature€of€the€charge,€ð ðthe€relevant€inquiry€is€not€one€of€form,€but€of€effectÏ.€.€.€.ðð€€(òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€530€U.S.€at€p.€494.)€€A€ð ðState€cannot€through€mere€characterization€changeÐ š ê  Ðthe€nature€of€the€conduct€actually€targeted.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€493,€fn.€18.)€€ð ðPut€simply,€facts€that€exposeÐ ü L  Ða€defendant€to€a€punishment€greater€than€that€otherwise€legally€prescribed€[are]€by€definitionÏððelementsðð€of€a€separate€legal€offense.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€483,€fn.€10.)Ð À  Ðà  àGiven€the€principles€stated€by€the€Supreme€Court,€it€is€manifest€that€the€California€rule€isÏunconstitutional.€€If€the€People€charge€the€wrong€offense€and€the€jury€is€instructed€on€the€wrongÏoffense,€the€federal€Constitution€demands€that€a€remedy€be€provided€to€the€defendant.Ìà  àIn€the€sections€which€follow,€an€attempt€will€be€made€to€illustrate€the€application€of€theÏforegoing€principles.€€In€offering€this€approach,€there€is€no€suggestion€that€this€is€the€only€or€evenÏthe€best€approach.€€Rather,€the€knowledgeable€and€skillful€appellate€advocate€must€use€any€and€allÏmeans€to€ferret€out€arguable€issues.Ìà  àFinally,€it€should€be€noted€that€this€article€covers€only€a€few€of€the€myriad€subject€areas€inÏcriminal€law.€€The€topics€have€been€chosen€since€they€are€important€ones€and€Ô_ÔbecauseÔ_Ô€they€bestÏexemplify€the€authorsðð€approach€in€finding€issues.€€An€authoritative€list€of€possible€criminal€appellateÏissues€can€be€found€in€the€2000€Appellate€College€materials€which€are€available€on€the€Ô_ÔADIÔ_Ô€websiteÏ(Ô4‚Ý ©ÔÝ‚ ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôwww.adi„sandiego.com).Ô6•5ÔÝ‚ ÍO©5ƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7Ý ?×5Ô€€(OððConnell,€Issue€Spotting€and€Evaluation:€General€Tips€and€AnnotatedÐ X ¨( ÐÔ_ÔChecklist.)ÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓÌL€ÓÔ_ÔÌÓ€ÌLë6ÓÓ€ÓÔ_ÔA.Ô_Ôà0  àÔ_Ôò òDoÔ_Ô€Not€Ever€Assume€That€The€Trial€Court€Had€Fundamental€Jurisdiction€Over€TheÐ b#²- ÐÔ_ÔCase.Ô_Ôó óÐR$¢.(#(# ÐÓ€ÓÌÔ_ÔÓ€08ÓÓ€ÓÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àIt€is€a€prime€principle€of€California€jurisprudence€that€a€defendant€cannot€be€convicted€if€theÏtrial€court€lacked€fundamental€jurisdiction€over€the€case.€€(òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔChaddÔ_Ôóó€(1981)€28€Cal.3d€739,Ð 'f"2 Ð757.)€€In€general€terms,€a€lack€of€fundamental€jurisdiction€connotes€the€courtððs€€ð ðentire€absence€ofÏpower€to€hear€or€determine€the€case,€an€absence€of€authority€over€the€subject€matter€or€the€parties.Ï[Citation.]ðð€(òòÔ_ÔAbelleiraÔ_Ô€v.€District€Court€of€Appealóó€(1941)€17€Cal.2d€280,€288.)€€Importantly,€errorsÐ <+Œ&8 Ðarising€from€a€lack€of€fundamental€jurisdiction€can€be€raised€at€any€time€without€the€benefit€of€anÏobjection€in€the€trial€court.€€(òòPeople€v.€Williamsóó€(1999)€21€Cal.4th€335,€339„340.)Ð b Ðà  àGiven€this€reality,€appellate€counsel€should€never€presume€that€the€trial€court€possessedÏfundamental€jurisdiction€over€the€cause.€€While€the€following€examples€are€not€intended€to€beÏexhaustive,€they€should€serve€to€demonstrate€that€a€hidden€question€of€fundamental€jurisdiction€mayÏexist€even€though€no€objection€was€made€in€the€trial€court.Ìà  àArticle€I,€section€14€of€the€California€Constitution€provides€that€a€felony€ð ðshall€be€prosecutedÏas€provided€by€law,€either€by€indictment€or,€after€examination€and€commitment€by€a€magistrate,€byÏinformation.ðð€€Given€this€provision,€the€parties€may€not€confer€jurisdiction€on€the€court€by€stipulatingÏthat€a€complaint€may€serve€as€the€information.€€(òòPeople€v.€Smithóó€(1986)€187€Cal.App.3d€1222,€1224„Ð "r  Ð1225;€but€see€òòPeople€v.€Cartwrightóó€(1995)€39€Cal.App.4th€1123,€1132.)€Thus,€in€any€felony€caseÐ „Ô  Ðwhere€neither€an€information€nor€an€indictment€was€filed,€a€jurisdictional€challenge€is€available€onÏappeal.Ìà  àAs€the€Supreme€Court€has€recently€reaffirmed,€the€bar€of€the€statute€of€limitations€may€beÏraised€at€any€time€even€though€there€was€no€objection€in€the€trial€court.€€(òòPeople€v.€Williams,€supraóó,Ð  \ Ð21€Cal.4th€335,€339„340.)€€This€is€true€even€if€the€defendant€entered€a€guilty€plea.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€340.)€Ð n¾ ÐHowever,€this€rule€is€limited€to€those€situations€where€the€charging€document€ð ðon€its€face,€indicatesÏthe€offense€is€time„barred.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€344.)€€If€the€charging€document€ð ðeither€shows€the€offense€wasÐ 2‚" Ðcommitted€within€the€time€period€or€contains€tolling€allegations,ðð€a€jurisdictional€claim€will€not€lieÏand€the€defendant€will€have€to€resort€to€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€if€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€issue€was€not€raised€in€the€trial€court.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€344„345.)Ð X ¨( Ðà  àAnother€common€jurisdictional€issue€arises€from€the€application€of€Penal€Code€section€1368.€ÏOn€many€occasions,€the€trial€court€will€suspend€the€proceedings€while€an€inquiry€is€conducted€as€toÏwhether€the€defendant€is€competent€to€assist€in€his€own€defense.€€(Penal€Code€section€1368,€subd.Ï(c).)€€Unless€and€until€the€suspension€order€is€lifted,€the€trial€court€has€no€jurisdiction€to€try€theÏdefendant.€€(òòPeople€v.€Marksóó€(1988)€45€Cal.3d€1335,€1340„1344.)€€In€this€situation,€reversal€isÐ B'’"2 Ðrequired€even€if€the€defendant€was€convicted€at€an€error€free€trial.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð ¤(ô#4 Ðà  àA€final€example€of€a€jurisdictional€claim€involves€the€situation€where€a€trial€court€conductsÏproceedings€on€remand€before€the€remittitur€is€issued€by€the€Court€of€Appeal.€€Any€such€proceedingsÐ h+¸&8 Ðare€null€and€void.€€(òòPeople€v.€Perezóó€(1979)€23€Cal.3d€545,€554;€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔSonoquiÔ_Ôóó€(1934)€1€Cal.2dÐ ° Ð364,€366„367.)Ìà  àThe€foregoing€survey€of€the€law€yields€a€simple€truth.€€Appellate€counsel€should€neverÏassume€that€the€trial€court€had€fundamental€jurisdiction€over€the€case.€€To€the€contrary,€counselÏshould€always€take€a€few€minutes€to€investigate€whether€the€court€had€Ô_Ôjurisdiction.ÌÔ_ÔÓÌL€ÓÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ€ÌLÖHÓÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔB.à  àò òChallengesÔ_Ô€to€The€Sufficiency€of€the€Ô_ÔEvidence.Ô_Ôó óÐ à 0  Ðà  àIn€the€usual€case,€there€will€be€little€doubt€that€the€government€successfully€proved€theÏelements€of€the€crime€for€which€the€defendant€was€convicted.€€However,€in€a€number€of€cases,€it€willÏbe€possible€to€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€by€carefully€comparing€the€evidence€in€theÏrecord€as€against€the€elements€found€in€the€relevant€statute.€€In€conducting€such€an€examination,Ïthere€are€at€least€four€techniques€that€might€be€employed:€(1)€the€evidence€does€not€satisfy€the€policyÏunderlying€the€statute;€(2)€the€evidence€does€not€satisfy€the€true€meaning€of€the€statute;€(3)€in€certainÏcircumstances,€the€prosecutor€simply€charged€the€wrong€crime;€and€(4)€in€some€cases,€the€testimonyÏof€an€accomplice€is€not€adequately€corroborated.€€Examples€of€each€category€are€as€follows.Ìà  àAn€element€of€aggravated€kidnapping€is€that€ð ðthe€movement€of€the€victim€is€beyond€thatÏmerely€incidental€to€the€commission€of,€.€.€.€the€intended€underlying€offense.ðð€€(Penal€Code€sectionÏ209,€subd.€(b)(2).)€€The€applicable€underlying€offenses€are€robbery€and€serious€sexual€crimes€suchÏas€rape.€€In€recent€cases,€the€Courts€of€Appeal€have€held€that€movements€of€as€little€as€9€and€29€feetÏwere€not€incidental€to€the€defendantsðð€plans€to€commit€robbery€or€rape.€€(òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔShaddenÔ_Ôóó€(2001)Ð à0% Ð93€Cal.App.4th€164,€169„170;€òòPeople€v.€Salazaróó€(1995)€33€Cal.App.4th€341,€347.)€€These€holdingsÐ B’' Ðare€flatly€inconsistent€with€the€policy€justification€for€imposing€severe€punishment€for€an€aggravatedÏkidnapping.Ìà  àGiven€the€extreme€punishment€for€aggravated€kidnapping,€the€Supreme€Court€has€indicatedÏthat€the€ð ðincidental€movementðð€element€must€be€examined€with€the€common€sense€notion€that€someÏmovement€of€the€victim€is€necessary€in€order€to€accomplish€a€rape€or€robbery.€€(òòPeople€v.€DanielsóóÐ ,&|!1 Ð(1969)€71€Cal.2d€1119,€1136„1138.)€€Thus,€de€minimis€movements€such€as€9€and€29€feet€cannotÏsatisfy€section€209,€subd.€(b)(2)€unless€the€movement€was€for€a€purpose€unrelated€to€the€commissionÏof€the€crime.€€Fortunately,€one€appellate€court€has€recognized€this€principle.Ìà  àIn€òòPeople€v.€Hoardóó€(2002)€103€Cal.App.4th€599,€the€defendant€robbed€two€employees€of€aÐ ´+'9 Ðjewelry€store€and€asported€them€50€feet€into€an€office€where€they€were€tied€up.€€In€reversing€theÏdefendantððs€conviction€for€aggravated€kidnapping,€the€court€reasoned€that€the€ð ðmovement€of€the€twoÏwomen€served€only€to€facilitate€the€crime€with€no€other€apparent€purpose.ðð€€(òòId.,€óóat€p.€607,€fn.Ð tÄ Ðomitted.)Ìà  àAs€òòHoardóó€reveals,€an€element€of€a€crime€must€always€be€measured€with€an€eye€towards€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpolicy€underlying€the€crime.€€The€justification€for€imposing€a€life€sentence€for€aggravated€kidnappingÏis€not€satisfied€when€a€defendant€has€moved€a€victim€a€few€feet€in€order€to€commit€a€garden€varietyÏrobbery.Ìà  àSpeaking€of€robbery,€an€even€better€example€of€the€use€of€policy€in€raising€a€sufficiency€ofÏthe€evidence€challenge€can€be€found€by€examining€Penal€Code€section€213,€subd.€(a)(1)(A).)€€InÏrelevant€part,€the€provision€provides€for€enhanced€punishment€when€a€residential€robbery€has€beenÏcommitted€ð ðin€concert€with€two€or€more€other€persons,€.€.€.€.ðð€€(Section€213,€subd.€(a)(1)(A).)€€InÏòòPeople€v.€Bernardóó,€H024950,€the€defendant€was€punished€under€this€statute€when€she€and€one€otherÐ H˜ Ðperson€entered€the€victimððs€home.€€Although€the€statute€imposes€additional€punishment€when€at€leastÏthree€people€commit€the€crime,€the€Court€of€Appeal€held€in€its€unpublished€opinion€that€not€all€ofÏthe€three€participants€must€enter€the€residence.€€This€holding€is€belied€by€the€purpose€underlying€theÏstatute.€Ìà  àThe€provision€in€question€was€added€in€1994.€€The€legislative€history€establishes€that€theÏpurpose€of€the€law€was€to€provide€greater€punishment€for€those€who€commit€ð ðhome€invasionððÏrobberies.€€(Sen.€Com.€on€Judiciary,€Analysis€of€AB€779€(1993„1994€Reg.€Sess.)€p.€2€[ð ðAB€779€isÏaimed€at€home€and€business€invasions€which€are€an€aggravated€kind€of€property€theft€andÏintimidation€executed€by€groups€of€persons€acting€in€concert€who€enter€into€peopleððs€homes€toÏterrorize€them.ðð].)€€Obviously,€a€ð ðhome€invasionðð€robbery€has€not€occurred€unless€at€least€threeÏthieves€enter€a€house.€€The€holding€of€the€Court€of€Appeal€in€òòBernardóó€is€clearly€at€odds€with€theÐ ~$Î. Ðpurpose€underlying€section€213,€subd.€(a)(1)(A).Ìà  àA€second€method€of€finding€a€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€issue€is€by€examining€the€meaningÏof€the€relevant€statutory€language.€€Taken€at€face€value,€a€defendantððs€conduct€may€appear€to€haveÏsatisfied€a€statute.€€However,€a€closer€examination€may€reveal€that€an€argument€to€the€contrary€canÏbe€made.Ð h+¸&8 Ðà  àòòIn€re€Ricky€T.óó€(2001)€87€Cal.App.4th€1132€illustrates€this€technique.€There,€the€minor€wasÐ ° Ðcharged€with€making€a€criminal€threat€under€Penal€Code€section€422€when€he€threatened€to€ð ðgetðð€hisÏteacher€and€ð ðkick€his€ass.ðð€€Under€section€422,€the€utterance€of€a€threat€is€punishable€so€long€as€it€isÏmade€in€an€ð ðunconditional,€immediate,€and€specific€.€.€.€.ðð€manner.€€At€first€blush,€Rickyððs€threatÏseems€to€match€up€with€the€plain€terms€of€section€422.€€However,€his€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÏclaim€prevailed€on€appeal.Ìà  àIn€its€analysis,€the€Court€of€Appeal€reasoned€that€the€nature€of€a€threat€must€be€measured€inÏð ðcontextðð€rather€than€solely€on€the€basis€of€ð ðthe€words€spoken.ðð€€(òòRicky€T.,€supraóó,€87€Cal.App.4thÐ ^®  Ðat€p.€1137,€fn.€omitted.)€€Measured€by€this€standard,€Rickyððs€threat€did€not€satisfy€section€422€sinceÏthe€ð ðsurrounding€circumstancesðð€revealed€that€there€was€no€real€possibility€of€violence.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.Ð "r  Ð1138„1139.)€€Thus,€while€Ricky€made€a€threat,€it€was€not€one€which€fell€within€the€meaning€ofÏsection€422.Ìà  àAnother€technique€for€examining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€is€to€examine€the€record€inÏorder€to€determine€if€the€government€brought€the€proper€charge€against€the€defendant.€€In€some€cases,Ïthe€defendant€may€be€guilty,€but€not€of€the€offense€at€issue.€This€genre€of€error€frequently€arises€withÏtheft€crimes.€€A€pending€Sixth€District€case€provides€an€example.Ìà  àIn€òòPeople€v.€Harrisonóó,€H026852,€the€defendant€was€employed€at€the€Palo€Alto€city€dump.€Ð Ð   ÐHis€job€was€to€collect€the€fees.€€According€to€the€testimony€of€an€undercover€cop,€Mr.€Harrison€tookÏ$40€from€him€without€supplying€a€receipt€or€placing€the€money€in€the€till.€€The€governmentÏproceeded€solely€on€a€larceny€theory.€€While€there€is€certainly€substantial€evidence€that€a€theftÏoccurred,€the€crime€of€larceny€did€not€transpire.€Ìà  àUnder€settled€principles,€an€element€of€larceny€is€that€property€was€taken€from€theÏð ðpossessionðð€of€the€victim.€€(2€Witkin€and€Epstein,€California€Criminal€Law€(3rd€ed.€2000)€CrimesÏAgainst€Property,€section€17,€p.€38;€3€LaFave,€Substantive€Criminal€Law€(2nd€ed.€2003)€chaptersÏ19.2(b)€and€19.6(e)(1),€pp.€66,€107.)€€In€òòHarrisonóó,€the€city€was€never€in€ð ðpossessionðð€of€the€moneyÐ à%0!0 Ðtendered€by€the€cop€(i.e.€the€money€was€never€placed€in€the€cityððs€till).€€Thus,€while€Mr.€Harrison€isÏprobably€guilty€of€embezzlement,€he€is€not€guilty€of€larceny.€€(òòIbid.)óóÐ ¤(ô#4 Ðà  àFinally,€California€law€expressly€provides€that€a€conviction€may€not€be€obtained€on€the€basisÏof€accomplice€testimony€ð ðunless€it€be€corroborated€by€such€other€evidence€as€shall€tend€to€connectÐ h+¸&8 Ðthe€defendant€with€the€commission€of€the€offense;€.€.€.€.ðð€€(Penal€Code€section€1111.)€€An€accompliceÏis€a€person€ð ðwho€is€liable€to€prosecution€for€the€identical€offense€charged€against€the€defendant€.€.Ï.€.ðð€€(òòIbidóó.)€€Importantly,€extrajudicial€statements€fall€within€the€category€of€accomplice€testimony.€Ð tÄ Ð(òòPeople€v.€Andrewsóó€(1989)€49€Cal.3d€200,€214.)Ð Ö& Ðà  àGiven€these€principles,€appellate€counsel€should€examine€the€record€in€order€to€determineÏif€any€of€the€governmentððs€witnesses€were€accomplices.€€If€so,€a€meritorious€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€issue€may€exist.€€(See€òòIn€re€Gayóó€(1998)€19€Cal.4th€771,€792„793€[evidence€that€both€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendant€and€the€perpetrator€were€light€skinned€was€probably€insufficient€corroboration€of€theÏaccompliceððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€committed€the€crimes].)Ìà  àIt€is€never€a€foregone€conclusion€that€the€judgment€is€supported€by€substantial€evidence.€€ByÏemploying€the€techniques€identified€above,€appellate€counsel€can€often€mount€fruitful€challenges€toÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÓ€ÌLÕlÓÔ_ÔC.Ô_Ôà0  àÔ_Ôò òInstructionalÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔIssues.ó óÔ_ÔÐŽÞ(#(# Ðà  àA€full€length€article€on€the€subject€of€instructional€error€is€available€from€SDAP.€€(Sacher,ÏThe€Search€for€Instructional€Error€By€The€Appellate€Advocate:€A€Suggested€Approach€(2004€ed).)€ÏA€few€salient€points€from€that€article€are€as€follows.Ìà  àThe€cardinal€principle€is€to€be€creative.€€When€an€appellate€lawyer€reviews€the€instructionsÏgiven€at€a€trial,€it€is€essential€that€the€instructions€be€examined€with€an€open€mind.€€Although€anÏattorney€may€have€read€a€standard€CALJIC€instruction€on€many€occasions,€it€is€counselððs€duty€toÏstudy€the€instruction€as€if€it€were€newly€minted.ÌÔ‡XUXXXXUXÔà  àIn€this€regard,€it€must€be€emphasized€that€CALJIC€is€not€the€legal€equivalent€of€the€Bible.€Ð ¤ ô) Ð(òòPeople€v.€Vargasóó€(1988)€204€Cal.App.3d€1455,€1464€[CALJIC€instructions€"are€not€sacrosanct"];Ð "V+ ÐStandards€of€Judicial€Administration€Recommended€By€The€Judicial€Council,€Section€5€[trial€€judgeÏmust€give€ð ðno€less€considerationðð€to€instructions€requested€by€a€party€than€to€those€contained€inÏCALJIC.].)€€Over€the€years,€creative€advocates€have€caused€the€appellate€courts€to€write€literallyÏdozens€of€opinions€which€have€found€fault€with€many€CALJIC€instructions.€€Thus,€even€though€aÏCALJIC€instruction€may€be€one€of€longstanding,€it€is€never€too€late€to€challenge€its€legitimacy.Ìà  àIn€the€same€vein,€it€is€important€to€note€that€CALJIC€is€in€a€constant€state€of€flux€in€that€itsÏeditors€are€always€changing,€removing€and€adding€instructions.€€Given€this€state€of€affairs,€appellateÐ ´+'9 Ðcounsel€should€carefully€review€òòanyóó€change€which€has€been€made€in€CALJIC.€€In€many€cases,€suchÐ ° Ða€review€will€lead€to€the€conclusion€that€the€CALJIC€editors€have€made€a€substantial€error.ÌÔ#†XUXXXXUX)p#ÔÔ‡XUXXXXUXÔà  àAside€from€carefully€studying€the€standard€CALJIC€instructions€from€the€standpoint€of€theirÐ tÄ Ðgeneral€correctness,€counsel€should€also€be€sensitive€to€how€the€instructions€Ô_ÔrelatedÔ_Ô€to€the€specificÏfacts€of€the€case€under€review.€€It€may€well€be€that€a€generally€proper€instruction€is€misleading€whenÏit€is€employed€in€a€certain€factual€context.€€Thus,€counsel€must€always€be€attuned€to€the€interplay€ofÏthe€instructions€given€and€their€relation€to€the€specific€facts€of€the€case.€€(See€òòPeople€v.€Coleóó€(1988)Ð ü L  Ð202€Cal.App.3d€1439,€1446€["[e]ven€an€accurate€statement€of€the€law€may€be€erroneous€as€anÏinstruction€if€it€is€likely€to€mislead€or€misdirect€a€jury€upon€an€issue€vital€to€the€defense€.€.€.".].)Ìà  àIn€short,€there€is€no€substitute€for€an€open€mind.€€By€carefully€and€slowly€reviewing€theÏinstructions,€an€appellate€attorney€will€often€come€up€with€a€clever€argument€which€would€have€beenÏoverlooked€had€a€more€cursory€review€been€undertaken.€€€€€ÌÔ#†XUXXXXUX u#Ôà  àThere€are€essentially€four€types€of€instructional€error:€(1)€an€instruction€which€is€erroneousÐ H˜ Ðon€its€face;€(2)€a€legally€correct€instruction€which€has€no€application€to€the€case€at€bar;€(3)€the€denialÏof€an€instruction€requested€by€the€defense;€and€(4)€the€trial€courtððs€error€in€failing€to€give€a€requiredÏinstruction€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó.€€These€areas€will€be€briefly€explored€below.Ð n¾ Ðà  àWith€respect€to€category€one,€appellate€counsel€should€carefully€read€each€and€everyÏinstruction€which€was€given€to€the€jury.€€In€so€doing,€counsel€should€measure€the€language€employedÏin€the€instruction€against€the€substantive€law€found€in€Californiaððs€statutes€and€the€federalÏConstitution.€€Oftentimes,€this€examination€will€reveal€that€an€instruction€is€legally€erroneous.Ìà  àFor€example,€CALJIC€No.€2.15€is€an€instruction€of€longstanding€which€advises€the€jury€thatÏthe€defendantððs€possession€of€recently€stolen€property€is€sufficient€proof€that€he€stole€the€propertyÏso€long€as€there€is€ð ðslight€corroborationðð€of€his€guilt.€Without€doubt,€use€of€the€term€ð ðslightðð€rendersÏthe€instruction€constitutionally€defective.€€This€is€so€since€the€word€ð ðslightðð€impermissibly€reducesÏthe€governmentððs€burden€of€proof€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€(òòUnited€States€v.€Grayóó€(5th€Cir.€1980)Ð à%0!0 Ð626€F.2d€494,€500€[use€of€the€term€ð ðslight€evidenceðð€in€a€conspiracy€instruction€constitutedÏconstitutional€error];€see€also€òòSullivan€v.€Louisianaóó€(1993)€508€U.S.€275,€279„281€[an€instructionalÐ ¤(ô#4 Ðerror€which€misadvises€the€jury€regarding€the€reasonable€doubt€standard€compels€reversal€per€se].)Ìà  àIt€is€frequently€the€case€that€a€trial€court€will€give€a€legally€correct€instruction€which€simplyÐ h+¸&8 Ðdoes€not€apply€to€the€case€at€bar.€€Thus,€appellate€counsel€should€carefully€scrutinize€the€record€inÏorder€to€ensure€that€all€of€the€instructions€were€actually€applicable.Ìà  àòòPeople€v.€Hannonóó€(1977)€19€Cal.3d€588€illustrates€this€type€of€error.€€There,€the€prosecutorÐ tÄ Ðsought€to€impeach€a€defense€witness€by€showing€that€the€defendantððs€lawyer€had€instructed€him€notÏto€talk€to€the€prosecutorððs€investigator.€Based€on€this€evidence,€the€trial€court€gave€CALJIC€No.€2.06Ïwhich€advised€the€jury€that€it€could€find€that€Ô_ÔtheÔ_Ô€defendant€had€a€consciousness€of€guilt€since€heÏattempted€to€suppress€evidence.€€Although€No.€2.06€is€a€standard€instruction€which€is€routinely€used,Ïthe€Supreme€Court€held€that€it€was€erroneously€given€since€there€was€no€evidence€that€the€defendantÏhad€personally€participated€in€silencing€the€witness.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€599„600.)Ð À  Ðà  àThe€lesson€to€be€drawn€from€òòHannonóó€is€a€simple€one.€€Each€and€every€jury€instruction€shouldÐ "r  Ðbe€carefully€examined€in€order€to€ascertain€whether€it€has€a€basis€in€the€record.€€By€using€thisÏtechnique,€a€number€of€issues€can€be€found.Ìà  àLittle€need€be€said€about€the€third€category€of€instructional€error.€€Obviously,€appellateÏcounsel€must€carefully€review€the€record€whenever€the€trial€court€has€denied€an€instruction€requestedÏby€the€defense.€€(See€generally€òòPeople€v.€Wrightóó€(1988)€45€Cal.3d€1126,€1137€[defendant€is€entitledÐ  \ Ðto€an€instruction€which€pinpoints€ð ðthe€crux€of€the€defenseðð€without€engaging€in€an€argumentativeÏrecitation€of€the€evidence].)Ìà  àThe€final€category€of€instructional€error€involves€those€situations€where€the€trial€court€hasÏfailed€to€honor€its€duty€to€give€an€instruction€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó.€€In€order€to€spot€issues€in€this€area€of€theÐ ”ä$ Ðlaw,€appellate€counsel€must€become€knowledgeable€concerning€the€many€instructions€which€mustÏbe€given€by€the€court€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó.€€(For€a€list€of€those€instructions€which€must€be€given€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó,Ð X ¨( Ðsee€Appendix€A,€CALJIC€(Jan.€2004€ed.)€pp.€1227„1234.)Ìà  àIn€considering€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€honor€its€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€instructionalÐ #l, Ðduties,€appellate€counsel€should€give€particular€attention€to€whether€the€instructions€contained€anyÏterms€whose€meaning€would€not€have€been€readily€apparent€to€the€jurors.€€If€so,€a€strong€issue€mayÏexist.Ìà  àIn€instructing€the€jury,€the€trial€court€has€an€obligation€to€define€those€terms€which€have€aÏð ðððtechnical€meaning€peculiar€to€the€law.ðð€[Citations.]ðð€(òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔKimbrelÔ_Ôóó€(1981)€120€€Cal.App.3dÐ *V%6 Ð869,€872.)€€When€appellate€counsel€reviews€the€instructions€given€to€the€jury,€it€is€important€to€lookÐ h+¸&8 Ðfor€words€whose€meaning€might€be€less€than€obvious€to€a€layperson.€€If€a€technical€term€is€employedÏin€defining€the€elements€of€a€crime€or€a€defense,€the€failure€to€define€the€term€may€result€in€reversibleÏerror.Ìà  àFor€example,€Health€and€Safety€Code€section€11366€defines€the€rarely€charged€offense€ofÏopening€or€maintaining€a€place€for€the€use€or€sale€of€narcotics.€€Since€there€was€no€CALJICÏinstruction€for€the€offense,€the€trial€court€in€òòPeople€v.€Shoalsóó€(1992)€8€Cal.App.4th€475€failed€toÐ š ê  Ðdefine€the€meaning€of€ð ðopening€or€maintaining€a€place.ðð€€After€finding€that€the€term€has€a€veryÏspecific€meaning€(i.e.€the€place€must€be€continually€used€for€the€proscribed€illegal€purpose),€theÏCourt€of€Appeal€held€that€the€trial€court€had€committed€reversible€error€by€failing€to€define€the€termÏfor€the€jury.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€489„491.)Ð "r  Ðà  àThe€jury€instructions€often€provide€a€veritable€treasure€trove€of€appellate€issues.€€By€usingÏthe€techniques€suggested€above,€defense€counsel€can€hopefully€spot€some€winning€Ô_Ôissues.ÌÔ_ÔÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌL›ÓÓ€ÓÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔD.Ô_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôò òSpottingÔ_Ô€and€Developing€a€Claim€of€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Trial€Counsel:€TheÐ ŽÞ ÐDefendant€is€Entitled€to€Have€His€Case€Litigated€the€Right€Way€in€The€TrialÏÔ_ÔCourt.Ô_Ôó óÐjºÐ Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌÔ_ÔÓ€?’ÓÓ€ÓÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àAlthough€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€has€often€been€derided€as€theÏproduct€of€appellate€lawyersðð€imagination,€òòóóthe€truth€is€that€there€are€a€significant€number€of€casesÐ .~ Ðwhere€the€defendant€has€not€been€afforded€competent€representation€at€trial.€€Indeed,€in€recent€years,Ïthe€federal€courts€have€reversed€numerous€state€convictions€on€the€grounds€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€trial€counsel.€€(See€Hertz€and€Liebman,€Federal€Habeas€Corpus€Practice€and€Procedure€(2003ÏSupplement)€section€11.2c,€pp.€92„99€[collecting€cases].)Ìà  àGiven€this€reality,€it€is€incumbent€upon€appellate€counsel€to€carefully€review€each€and€everyÏrecord€in€order€to€determine€if€the€defendant€has€received€the€effective€representation€to€which€heÏwas€constitutionally€entitled.€€In€conducting€this€review,€counsel€should€employ€a€simple€rule.Ìà  àAfter€closely€studying€the€manner€in€which€the€proceedings€were€actually€conducted,Ïappellate€counsel€should€ask€a€simple€question:€How€òòshouldóó€the€case€have€been€conducted?€€WhileÐ  &ð!1 Ðthe€Supreme€Court€has€cautioned€that€the€decisions€of€trial€counsel€are€entitled€to€deference,Ïcounselððs€actions€must€still€be€measured€by€a€standard€of€reasonableness.€€(òòStrickland€v.€WashingtonóóÐ d)´$5 Ð(1984)€466€U.S.€668,€689„690.)€€If€trial€counsel€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔactedÔ_Ô€irrationally,€his€tactical€choices€(if€such€theyÏwere)€are€not€entitled€to€deference.€€(òòCave€v.€Singletaryóó€(11th€Cir.€1992)€971€F.2d€1513,€1518;€Ð (,x'9 ÐòòEldridge€v.€Atkinsóó€(8th€Cir.€1981)€665€F.2d€228,€237,€fn.€5€[trial€counselððs€performance€was€deficientÐ ° Ðsince€his€purported€strategy€ð ðnot€to€use€[witnesses]€was€not€so€much€trial€strategy€as€it€was€anÏaccommodation€to€his€own€inadequate€trial€preparationðð];€òòPeople€v.€Friersonóó€(1979)€25€Cal.3d€142,Ð tÄ Ð162„163€[a€tactical€decision€made€without€the€benefit€of€investigation€is€irrational].)Ìà  àUnlike€the€typical€appellate€issue€where€counsel€must€first€establish€that€there€was€anÏadequate€objection€made€in€the€trial€court,€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€has€no€suchÏboundary.€Thus,€appellate€counsel€should€carefully€consider€whether€something€went€dramaticallyÏwrong€in€the€trial€court€proceedings.€€If€it€did,€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€a€remedy€even€though€trialÏcounsel€did€not€make€a€sufficient€objection€or€otherwise€preserve€the€issue.Ìà  àIn€the€instance€of€a€jury€trial,€appellate€counsel€should€analyze€each€of€the€components€of€theÏcase.€€Counsel€should€look€at€the€governmentððs€case€and€inquire€whether€all€of€the€prosecutionÏevidence€was€admissible€under€the€rules€of€evidence.€€If€some€of€the€evidence€was€subject€toÏexclusion,€defense€counsel€erred€by€failing€to€make€the€proper€evidentiary€objection.€€(òòPeople€v.Ð H˜ ÐStrattonóó€(1988)€205€Cal.App.3d€87,€93„97€[reversible€error€found€where€defense€counsel€failed€toÐ ªú Ðobject€under€Evidence€Code€section€1101].)Ìà  àOn€the€opposite€side€of€the€coin,€appellate€counsel€should€determine€whether€there€wasÏprobative€evidence€which€would€have€supported€the€defense€case€but€which€defense€counsel€failedÏto€present.€€Obviously,€the€failure€to€adduce€exculpatory€evidence€or€evidence€which€impeaches€theÏgovernmentððs€case€is€a€serious€error.€€(òòAvila€v.€Galazaóó€(9th€Cir.€2002)€297€F.3d€911,€921„924Ð ”ä$ Ð[reversible€error€found€due€to€the€failure€to€call€exculpatory€witnesses].)Ìà  àAppellate€counsel€must€also€examine€the€jury€instructions€in€detail.€€If€there€was€a€helpfulÏinstruction€which€would€have€been€given€had€it€been€requested,€a€claim€of€error€may€exist.€€(òòPirtleÐ º! * Ðv.€Morganóó€(9th€Cir.€2002)€313€F.3d€1160,€1172„1174€[trial€counsel€erred€by€failing€to€obtain€anÐ #l, Ðinstruction€on€the€defense€of€diminished€capacity];€òòUnited€States€v.€Myersóó€(7th€Cir.€1990)€892€F.2dÐ ~$Î. Ð642,€648„649€[ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€found€due€to€the€omission€to€request€a€limitingÏinstruction].)Ìà  àKey€components€of€any€trial€are€the€opening€and€closing€statements€to€the€jury.€With€regardÏto€opening€statement,€defense€counsel€may€commit€prejudicial€error€when€he€promises€to€presentÏwitnesses€and€then€fails€to€do€so.€€(òòHarris€v.€Reedóó€(7th€Cir.€1990)€894€F.2d€871,€879.)€€At€the€closingÐ h+¸&8 Ðargument€stage,€defense€counsel€may€prejudice€the€defendantððs€case€when€he€fails€to€object€toÏprosecutorial€misconduct.€€(òòBurns€v.€Gammonóó€(8th€Cir.€2001)€260€F.3d€892,€897„898;€òòWashingtonÐ b Ðv.€Ô_ÔHofbaueróóÔ_Ô€(6th€Cir.€2000)€228€F.3d€689,€704.)€€In€addition,€defense€counselððs€own€closingÐ tÄ Ðargument€may€be€so€deficient€that€it€may€require€a€remedy.€€(òòPeople€v.€Diggsóó€(1986)€177€Cal.App.3dÐ Ö& Ð958,€970„972.)Ìà  àFinally,€in€arguing€the€issue€of€prejudice,€appellate€counsel€should€once€again€return€to€theÏcentral€question:€How€should€the€case€have€been€presented€to€the€jury?€€If€at€all€possible,€it€shouldÏbe€argued€that€trial€counselððs€errors€made€the€governmentððs€weak€case€look€stronger.€€(òòLuna€v.Ð ^®  ÐCambraóó€(9th€Cir.€2002)€306€F.3d€954,€966,€amended€311€F.3d€928€[ð ððð[A]€verdict€or€conclusion€onlyÐ À  Ðweakly€supported€by€the€record€is€more€likely€to€have€been€affected€by€errors€than€one€withÏoverwhelming€record€support.ðð€[Citation.]ðð].)€€At€the€same€time,€counsel€should€also€argue€that€theÏdefense€case€would€have€looked€immeasurably€stronger€in€the€juryððs€eyes€had€trial€counsel€done€hisÏjob€correctly.€€(òòAvila€v.€Galaza,€supraóó,€297€F.3d€911,€924€and€cases€cited€therein.)€€Of€course,Ð H˜ Ðcounsel€will€also€want€to€argue€that€prejudice€is€shown€by€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€of€trialÏcounselððs€errors.€€(òòPeople€v.€Hillóó€(1998)€17€Cal.4th€800,€844;€òòAlcala€v.€Woodfordóó€(9th€Cir.€2003)€334Ð  \ ÐF.3d€862,€893.)Ìà  àThere€is€a€wonderfully€objective€quality€to€hindsight.€€Once€an€event€has€occurred€(such€asÏa€jury€trial),€a€fair€minded€observer€can€carefully€deconstruct€the€proceedings€to€see€if€the€event€wasÏconducted€according€to€normative€expectations€(i.e.€the€Constitution€and€statutory€law).€€WhenÏexpectations€were€not€fulfilled€due€to€defense€counselððs€unreasonable€errors,€the€defendant€shouldÏnot€suffer.€€Indeed,€our€constitutional€system€requires€that€a€remedy€be€given.€€In€order€to€ensure€thatÏthe€Sixth€Amendment€retains€vitality,€appellate€counsel€should€not€hesitate€to€advance€a€claim€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€when€the€defendant€was€denied€a€fair€trial€through€no€fault€of€hisÏÔ_Ôown.ÌÔ_ÔÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÍ­ÓÓ€ÓÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔE.Ô_Ôà8  àÔ_Ôò òAÔ_Ô€Corollary€Principle€In€the€Investigation€of€a€Claim€of€Ineffective€AssistanceÐ &&v!1 Ðof€Counsel:€Appellate€Counsel€is€not€Bound€by€the€Theories€which€DefenseÏCounsel€Advanced€Ô_ÔBelow.Ô_Ôó óÐ(R#3Ð Ð  ÐÓ€ÓÌÔ_ÔÓ€¯ÓÓ€ÓÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ôà  àIn€reviewing€a€record,€appellate€counsel€will€sometimes€fall€victim€to€the€vice€ofÏunquestionably€accepting€the€manner€in€which€trial€counsel€litigated€the€case.€€This€is€a€fundamentalÏerror.€€As€was€suggested€above,€appellate€counsel€must€always€approach€the€case€as€if€he€was€goingÐ (,x'9 Ðto€try€it€for€the€first€time.€€Appellate€counsel€need€not€accept€the€choices€made€by€trial€counsel.€€TwoÏexamples€illustrate€this€approach.Ìà  àIn€òòFoster€v.€Lockhartóó€(8th€Cir.€1993)€9€F.3d€722,€the€defense€presented€an€alibi€defense€toÐ tÄ Ða€rape€charge.€€Although€he€possessed€evidence€that€defendant€was€impotent,€defense€counselÏdecided€not€to€present€the€evidence€on€the€theory€that€it€was€inconsistent€with€the€alibi€defense.ÏThinking€outside€the€box,€appellate€counsel€advanced€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÏdue€to€the€omission€to€present€the€evidence€of€impotency.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€accepted€theÏargument€and€declared€that€ð ð[c]ontrary€to€the€reasoning€of€Fosterððs€attorney,€an€impotency€defenseÏwould€have€reinforced€Fosterððs€alibi€defense€by€showing€it€was€even€more€unlikely€Foster€raped€theÏvictim.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€726.)Ð "r  Ðà  àAs€òòFosteróó€shows,€appellate€counsel€need€not€be€stuck€with€a€trial€attorneyððs€view€of€the€case.€Ð „Ô  ÐIf€trial€counsel€had€an€unduly€crabbed€understanding€of€the€possible€defenses,€appellate€counsel€canÏobtain€a€remedy€for€the€client.€€(See€òòRios€v.€Rochaóó€(9th€Cir.€2002)€299€F.3d€796,€807,€fn.€18€[defenseÐ H˜ Ðcounsel€erred€by€failing€to€present€the€complementary€defenses€of€misidentification€andÏunconsciousness].)Ìà  àA€second€example€of€the€principle€under€examination€can€be€found€in€òòPeople€v.€Escobaróó,Ð n¾ ÐH026298.€€There,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€stealing€a€compressor€from€his€employer.€€TheÏprosecutor€called€the€employer€who€testified€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€permission€to€take€theÏcompressor.€€The€defense€theory€of€the€case€was€that€the€employer€had€authorized€the€defendant€toÏtake€the€compressor.€€When€the€defense€adduced€the€employerððs€hearsay€statement€indicating€thatÏthe€defendant€could€take€the€compressor,€the€court€construed€the€statement€as€being€an€ð ðoperativeÏfactðð€and€instructed€the€jury€that€the€statement€could€not€be€considered€for€the€truth€of€the€matterÏasserted.€€However,€defense€counsel€missed€an€obvious€exception€to€the€hearsay€rule.€€The€statementÏwas€admissible€as€a€prior€inconsistent€statement.€€(òòPeople€v.€Burnhamóó€(1986)€176€Cal.App.3d€1134,Ð ~$Î. Ð1144,€fn.€10€[some€statements€may€be€admitted€as€both€an€operative€fact€and€as€a€prior€inconsistentÏstatement].)Ìà  àThe€lesson€of€the€foregoing€examples€should€be€well€learned.€€Appellate€counsel€need€notÏconfine€his€analysis€of€the€case€to€the€limitations€imposed€by€trial€counsel.ÌÓ€ÓÓÌLÓÌÓÌL‹»ÓF.€à8  àò òNo€Matter€How€the€Issue€is€Categorized,€the€Prosecutor€Should€Never€GetÐ ®+þ&9 ÐAway€With€Presenting€An€Erroneous€Theory€of€Liability€to€the€Jury.ó óаРР ÐÓ€ÓÌÓ€æ¼ÓÔ‡XoÛ XXXUXÔÓ€Óà  àIn€a€surprising€number€of€cases,€the€prosecutor€will€obtain€a€conviction€by€relying€on€anÐ b Ðerroneous€legal€theory.€Since€the€prosecutor€will€often€raise€a€number€of€theories€in€a€case,€appellateÏcounsel€must€be€extremely€attentive€to€every€theory€advanced€in€a€particular€case.€€By€carefullyÏscrutinizing€the€prosecutorððs€theories,€counsel€can€often€find€reversible€error.Ìà  àIn€some€cases,€the€prosecutor€will€obtain€a€jury€instruction€on€the€elements€of€the€offenseÏwhich€is€quite€simply€wrong.€€For€example,€the€specific€intent€to€kill€is€an€element€of€attemptedÏmurder.€(òòPeople€v.€Leeóó€(1987)€43€Cal.3d€666,€670.)€€However,€the€trial€judge€often€errs€by€instructingÐ ^®  Ðthe€jury€that€malice€(i.e.€intent€to€kill)€may€be€implied€from€the€circumstances€of€the€case.€€Such€anÏinstruction€constitutes€clear€error€which€can€be€raised€without€the€benefit€of€an€objection€at€trial.€Ï(Penal€Code€section€1259.)Ìà  àA€more€difficult€problem€arises€when€an€improper€theory€is€found,€not€in€the€juryÏinstructions,€but€in€the€prosecutorððs€closing€argument.€€It€is,€of€course,€misconduct€for€a€prosecutorÏto€misstate€the€law€during€closing€argument.€€(òòPeople€v.€Hill,€supraóó,€17€Cal.4th€800,€829„830.)€Ð ªú ÐHowever,€absent€an€objection,€any€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€is€waived.€€(òòPeople€v.€MoralesóóÐ  \ Ð(2001)€25€Cal.4th€34,€43„44.)€€In€this€situation,€two€possible€claims€are€available.Ìà  àFirst,€a€claim€of€Ô#†XUXX XXoÛ½#Ôineffective€assistance€of€counselÔ‡XoÛ XXXUXÔ€should€be€advanced.€€Such€a€claim€isÐ Ð   Ðpatently€meritorious€since€defense€counsel€has€an€absolute€duty€to€ensure€that€the€prosecutorððsÏclosing€argument€does€not€mislead€the€jury.€€(òòWashington€v.€Hofbauer,€supraóó,€228€F.3d€689.€704.)Ð ”ä$ Ðà  àSecond,€it€can€also€be€argued€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€preclusively€instruct€theÏjury€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€that€the€improper€theory€was€not€to€be€considered.€€This€argument€finds€support€inÐ X ¨( ÐòòPeople€v.€Morales,€supraóó,€25€Cal.4th€34.Ð º! * Ðà  àIn€òòMoralesóó,€the€Supreme€Court€discussed€its€earlier€decision€in€òòPeople€v.€Greenóó€(1980)€27Ð #l, ÐCal.3d€1.€€In€òòGreenóó,€the€prosecutor€argued€to€the€jury€that€three€separate€movements€of€the€victimÐ ~$Î. Ðmight€support€the€asportation€element€of€kidnapping.€€In€reversing,€the€òòGreenóó€court€held€that€one€ofÐ à%0!0 Ðthe€three€movements€was€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€satisfy€the€asportation€element.€€InÏcategorizing€this€holding,€òòMoralesóó€indicated€that€the€òòGreenóó€trial€court€could€have€cured€the€problemÐ ¤(ô#4 Ðby€giving€a€ð ðpreclusive€instructionðð€that€the€jury€was€not€to€rely€on€the€improper€theory.€€(òòMorales,Ð *V%6 Ðsupraóó,€25€Cal.4th€at€p.€43.)Ð h+¸&8 Ðà  àIn€conceptual€terms,€the€ð ðpreclusive€instructionðð€discussed€in€òòMoralesóó€is€the€type€ofÐ ° Ðinstruction€which€must€be€given€òòsuaóó€òò€sponteóó.€€This€is€so€since€the€court€must€instruct€òòsuaóó€òòsponteóó€onÐ b Ðthe€general€principles€of€law€which€govern€a€case.€€(òòPeople€v.€Brevermanóó€(1998)€19€Cal.4th€142,Ð tÄ Ð154.)€€Without€doubt,€the€inapplicability€of€a€theory€of€liability€is€a€general€principle.Ìà  àFundamental€fairness€requires€that€a€defendant€not€be€convicted€on€an€improper€legal€theory.ÏBy€employing€the€techniques€suggested€above,€appellate€counsel€can€guarantee€that€a€remedy€willÏbe€forthcoming€when€the€prosecutor€relies€on€an€erroneous€theory.Ìñ1ñÓÌL€Óñ1ññ0ñÌÓ€ÓÔ_Ôà  à//à ` à//Ð @  ÐÔ_ÔÔ_Ôñ0ñÌñ2ññ1ñÓ€ÌLDÕÓñ1ññ2ññ2ñÓ€ÌLbÌÓÓ€Óñ2ñà  àG.à8 ` àò òOnce€it€is€Spotted,€An€Issue€Should€be€Framed€to€MaximumÐ ¤ô  ÐAdvantage.ó óДä ` x` x Ðñ2ñÓ€=ÍÓñ2ñÓ€€ÓÌÓ€€ ÎÓñ0ñÓ€Óñ0ñà  àOne€of€the€advantages€of€being€an€appellate€lawyer€is€that€you€get€to€frame€an€issue€in€theÏmanner€that€you€see€fit.€€After€all,€it€is€òòyouróó€issue.€€However,€it€is€also€appellate€counselððs€obligationÐ X¨  Ðto€frame€the€issue€in€the€manner€which€is€most€favorable€to€the€client.€€A€concrete€example€of€thisÏprinciple€is€as€follows.Ìà  àAt€trial,€a€prosecution€witness€blurts€out€that€the€defendant€is€on€parole.€Defense€counselÏpromptly€objects€and€the€evidence€is€stricken.€The€defense€then€unsuccessfully€moves€for€a€mistrial.Ìà  àAn€inexperienced€appellate€lawyer€might€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theÏmistrial€motion.€€Such€a€claim€would€be€a€mistake.€€This€is€so€since€the€abuse€of€discretion€standardÏof€review€applies€to€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€denying€a€mistrial.€€(òòPeople€v.€Guruleóó€(2002)€28€Cal.4thÐ V" Ð557,€614.)Ìà  àThe€correct€legal€argument€is€simply€that€the€defendant€was€denied€a€fair€trial€since€the€juryÏheard€prejudicial€evidence.€By€framing€the€issue€in€this€manner,€the€appellate€court€will€most€likelyÏtreat€the€claim€as€being€a€pure€issue€of€law€which€requires€de€novo€review.€€(See€òòPeople€v.€AllenóóÐ Ž!Þ* Ð(1978)€77€Cal.App.3d€924,€934„935€[judgment€reversed€even€though€the€trial€court€struck€theÏtestimony€that€the€defendant€was€on€parole].)€Ìà  àAppellate€counsel€must€be€sufficiently€knowledgeable€to€both€spot€an€issue€and€frame€itÏcorrectly.€€If€an€issue€is€not€raised€under€the€correct€rubric,€all€of€the€hard€work€in€spotting€the€issueÏwill€go€for€naught.ÌÓÌL€ÓÌÓ€ÌLÔÓà  àH.à ` àò òA€Word€About€Sentencing€Issues.ó óÐ  *p%7 Ðà  àThe€California€Supreme€Court€has€declared€that€ð ðclaims€involving€the€trial€courtððs€failure€toÐ ˆ+Ø&9 Ðproperly€make€or€articulate€its€discretionary€sentencing€choicesðð€may€not€be€raised€on€appeal€absentÏan€objection€in€the€trial€court.€€(òòPeople€v.€Scottóó€(1994)€9€Cal.4th€331,€353.)€In€light€of€òòScott,óó€manyÐ b Ðappellate€lawyers€have€blindly€assumed€that€the€vast€majority€of€sentencing€issues€can€now€be€raisedÏonly€by€way€of€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€This€assumption€is€not€necessarilyÏcorrect.Ìà  àOn€its€own€terms,€the€òòScottóó€rule€applies€only€to€ð ðdiscretionaryðð€choices€actually€made€by€theÐ š ê  Ðtrial€court.€€(òòScott,€supraóó,€9€Cal.4th€at€pp.€353,€356.)€€Thus,€if€the€trial€court€had€an€erroneous€viewÐ ü L  Ðof€the€law€and€failed€to€exercise€its€discretion,€no€objection€is€required.€(òòPeople€v.€Aguirreóó€(1997)Ð ^®  Ð56€Cal.App.4th€1135,€1139€[waiver€of€sentencing€error€ð ðonly€occurs€when€the€alleged€error€involvedÏan€exercise€of€discretion.ðð].)Ìà  àMoreover,€it€is€essential€to€note€that€a€significant€number€of€sentencing€issues€may€be€raisedÏon€appeal€without€an€objection€in€the€trial€court.€€Since€some€of€these€issues€are€frequentlyÏoverlooked€by€appellate€counsel,€a€few€are€briefly€mentioned€below.Ìà  àSubject€to€certain€exceptions,€Penal€Code€section€654€provides€that€a€defendant€may€not€beÏpunished€for€two€or€more€crimes€if€he€maintained€only€a€single€criminal€intent.€€(òòPeople€v.€HesteróóÐ  \ Ð(2000)€22€Cal.4th€290,€294.)€€A€section€654€claim€can€be€raised€without€an€objection€in€the€trial€courtÏso€long€as€the€defendant€did€not€enter€a€plea€bargain€for€a€specified€sentence.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€294„297.)€Ð Ð   ÐThus,€whenever€it€may€be€plausibly€contended€that€the€defendant€had€only€a€single€criminal€purposeÏin€committing€multiple€crimes,€a€section€654€argument€should€be€advanced.Ìà  àIn€reviewing€the€sentencing€proceedings,€appellate€counsel€must€examine€each€and€everyÏdetail€of€the€sentence.€For€example,€counsel€should€review€the€award€of€presentence€credits€in€orderÏto€determine€if€it€is€factually€or€legally€inaccurate.€€An€error€involving€presentence€credits€can€alwaysÏbe€raised€in€the€trial€court€even€if€an€appeal€is€pending.€€(òòPeople€v.€Acostaóó€(1996)€48€Cal.App.4thÐ #l, Ð411,€428,€fn.€8;€see€Penal€Code€section€1237.1€[presentence€credits€issue€must€first€be€litigated€inÏthe€trial€court€before€an€appeal€can€be€taken].)Ìà  àA€commonly€missed€issue€on€appeal€involves€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€support€anÏaward€of€attorneyððs€fees.€€Under€Penal€Code€section€987.8,€subd.€(g)(2)(B),€a€defendant€sentencedÏto€state€prison€is€presumed€to€be€unable€to€pay€attorneyððs€fees.€€Thus,€unless€the€record€shows€thatÏa€defendant€had€substantial€assets€prior€to€being€committed€to€prison,€appellate€counsel€can€challengeÐ h+¸&8 Ðthe€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€support€the€award€of€attorneyððs€fees.€€(òòPeople€v.€Nilsenóó€(1988)€199Ð ° ÐCal.App.3d€344,€350„351.)Ìà  àSimilarly,€appellate€counsel€should€always€carefully€review€the€record€in€order€to€ensure€thatÏancillary€orders€issued€at€the€sentencing€hearing€are€supported€by€substantial€evidence.€€An€exampleÏof€this€type€of€error€is€a€Penal€Code€section€1202.1€order€requiring€the€defendant€to€be€tested€forÏAIDS.€€(òòPeople€v.€Butleróó€(2003)€31€Cal.4th€1119,€1127„1129€[section€1202.1€order€was€notÐ š ê  Ðsupported€by€substantial€evidence].)Ìà  àIn€short,€appellate€counsel€has€the€duty€to