Cal.Sup.Ct.;
S075725

The California Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of conviction and penalty. The court held that any error in the exclusion of testimony regarding the prosecutor's 11th hour efforts to secure additional eyewitness testimony was harmless.

Kiongazi Jones was tried before a jury on charges of two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and other crimes. Surviving victim Veronica Munguia testified that shortly prior to trial, prosecutor Patrick Connolly told her he needed more witnesses. She tried to persuade Anna Granillo to come forward. Granillo, who had previously steadfastly denied witnessing the crimes, then called Connolly and changed her story about what she had seen. At trial, Granillo identified Jones as one of the shooters. She also admitted that she initially lied about not seeing anything, for fear of retaliation. Defense counsel elicited testimony from Granillo that she did not tell anybody about seeing Jones on the night of the shootings until she learned from Munguia that Jones's trial was starting, and she would not have called Connolly if she had not spoken to Munguia. Based on this evidence, defense counsel explicitly invited the jury to make the reasonable inference that Connolly told Munguia “obviously, we need additional witnesses. This is a weak case. We don't get additional witnesses, Mr. Kiongozi Jones, he is going to walk.” Jones was convicted and sentenced to death.