and tainted mushroom connections further to support a diminished actuality defense based on voluntary intoxication (alcohol, marijuana and mushrooms), and perhaps involuntary intoxication (MDMA), while simultaneously dispelling any inference he attacked siblings out of revenge against Gabriel on behalf. Although Gabriel’s Calkins’s the theory has some surface appeal and internal coherence, when considered as a whole, its individual parts are not supported by admissible evidence. Besides, Kirkpatrick had adopted a directly contrary strategy. When the prosecutor attempted to elicit information from a police witness about who was, Kirkpatrick successfully moved to strike “Richard” his comment that Richard had some connection to earlier She “an Vacaville case.” evidently believed introducing the case into trial would merely help Calkins Cervantes’s to flesh out the revenge theory. prosecution’s Kirkpatrick explained her reasons for not developing a Calkins defense: “[T]he theory that was presented at trial was just statement, and that was it. So whoever [A.P.’s] this Richard was not presented at trial or the relationship of whoever Richard was.” Kirkpatrick did not investigate who Richard was because she not going to give them “was a While we question how a failure to investigate can be justified by the motive, no.” evidence actually presented at trial, we fail to see any prejudice flowing from failure to investigate. We ultimately agree with her that there was no need Kirkpatrick’s to rebut the revenge theory because the prosecution present anything at trial, who “didn’t Richard was or Richard Calkins’s case.” In cross-examining A.P., Kirkpatrick succeeded in getting her to admit she something about on the news or read something on the “possibly” heard “Richard” Internet. Exposing the jury to that much connection to the case, but no more, Calkins tended to call into question testimony about A.P.’s Cervantes’s purported “revenge” statement. We are convinced Kirkpatrick had a strategically logical approach to dealing with the revenge theory. In closing argument, Kirkpatrick used the lack of evidence prosecution’s connecting Cervantes to to try to convince the jury to dismiss the “Richard” prosecutor’s revenge theory: District Attorney has said over and over know what his “The again, ‘We
and tainted mushroom connections further to support a diminished actuality defense based on voluntary intoxication (alcohol, marijuana and mushrooms), and perhaps involuntary intoxication (MDMA), while simultaneously dispelling any inference he attacked Gabriel’s siblings out of revenge against Gabriel on Calkins’s behalf. Although the theory has some surface appeal and internal coherence, when considered as a whole, its individual parts are not supported by admissible evidence. Besides, Kirkpatrick had adopted a directly contrary strategy. When the prosecutor attempted to elicit information from a police witness about who “Richard” was, Kirkpatrick successfully moved to strike his comment that Richard had some connection to “an earlier Vacaville case.” She evidently believed introducing the Calkins case into Cervantes’s trial would merely help to flesh out the prosecution’s revenge theory. Kirkpatrick explained her reasons for not developing a Calkins defense: “[T]he theory that was presented at trial was just [A.P.’s] statement, and that was it. So whoever this Richard was not presented at trial or the relationship of whoever Richard was.” Kirkpatrick did not investigate who Richard was because she “was not going to give them a motive, no.” While we question how a failure to investigate can be justified by the evidence actually presented at trial, we fail to see any prejudice flowing from Kirkpatrick’s failure to investigate. We ultimately agree with her that there was no need to rebut the revenge theory because the prosecution “didn’t present anything at trial, who Richard was or Richard Calkins’s case.” In cross-examining A.P., Kirkpatrick succeeded in getting her to admit she “possibly” heard something about “Richard” on the news or read something on the Internet. Exposing the jury to that much connection to the Calkins case, but no more, tended to call into question A.P.’s testimony about Cervantes’s purported “revenge” statement. We are convinced Kirkpatrick had a strategically logical approach to dealing with the revenge theory. In closing argument, Kirkpatrick used the prosecution’s lack of evidence connecting Cervantes to “Richard” to try to convince the jury to dismiss the prosecutor’s revenge theory: “The District Attorney has said over and over again, ‘We know what his
A140464.DOCX