LAW OFFICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
MOLLY O'NEAL, # 150944
KELLEY PAUL KULICK, # 199413
County of Santa Clara
120 West Mission Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Telephone: (408) 299-7758
Attorneys for Defendant
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,Plaintiff,
vs.
Defendant / NO:
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO PEOPLE’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY
ISSUE PRESENTED
Evidence of third-party culpability is admissible if it is capable of raising a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact. The defense seeks to admit circumstantial evidence that links Dat Pham directly to the unique manner in which the victim was killed and the method of entry into the home. Should the court admit the defense evidence of third-party culpability?
ARGUMENT OF LAW
I. EVIDENCE THAT DAT PHAM COMMITTED THE HOMICIDE IS ADMISSIBLE AS IT RAISES A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO MR. HUYNH’S GUILT.
The prosecution has filed an in limine motion seeking to prevent the defense from presenting evidence of third-party culpability: Namely, that Dat Pham committed the homicide. The seminal case on third-party culpability is People v. Hall.[1] In Hall, the defendant was convicted of murder, robbery and burglary. The trial court excluded evidence of third-party culpability that another man had intimate knowledge of the crime, was left-handed which matched the injuries to the decedent, and there were unique shoe prints that could be linked to the third party. [2] Holding the trial court’s exclusionary ruling error, the California Supreme Court stated.
To be admissible, the third-party evidence need not show a ‘substantial proof of probability’ that the third person committed the act; it need only be capable of raising a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt.[3]
The standard for admissibility of third-party evidence as stated by the California Supreme Court is really just a reiteration of the admissibility of any relevant evidence. California Evidence Code section 210 states, “relevant evidence” is any evidence that “has a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” Relevant third-party evidence proffered by the defense may only be excluded if it creates a substantial danger of undue consumption of time or of prejudicing, confusing, or misleading the jury under Evidence Code section 352.[4] As the Hall court wrote,
…evidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant’s guilt: there must be direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime.[5]
In the present case, the defense can show that Dat Pham certainly had motive and opportunity to commit the murder of Danh Nguyen. However, the defense can off more than motive and opportunity. There is substantial evidence linking Dat Pham to the commission of the homicide.
II. STRONG EVIDENCE LINKS DAT PHAM TO THE COMMISSION OF THE MURDER.
The defense requests that the Court incorporate the proffered evidence from Motion IN LIMINE to admit evidence on thoroughness of police investigation into this motion. The prosecution argues that the defense has failed to set forth any circumstantial evidence linking Dat Pham to the homicide of Nguyen, and it characterizes the evidence contained in the defense proffer as irrelevant and speculative. The prosecution appears to argue that the Hall threshold only can be surmounted by direct evidence establishing that the third party was present at the very moment the crime was committed, irrefutable forensic evidence connecting the third party to the crime, or the third-party’s confession. This is particularly ironic given that the prosecution will base its entire case against Mr. Huynh on one piece of circumstantial evidence.
In fact, the circumstantial evidence linking Dat Pham to the crime far outweighs the circumstantial evidence linking Mr. Huynh. CALCRIM 223 defines circumstantial evidence as evidence that “does not directly prove the fact to be decided, but is evidence of another fact or group of facts from which you may logically and reasonably conclude the truth of the fact in question.” CALCRIM 224 instructs the jury: “[B]efore you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.” The third-party culpability evidence proffered by the defense certainly supports a reasonable conclusion that Dat Pham murdered Danh Nguyen.
In the present case, the evidence linking Dat Pham to the homicide is substantial:
· Dat Pham had motive to kill Nguyen based on Nguyen’s drug debt owed to Dat Pham. This motive is further corroborated by the fact that the drug supply stopped two weeks before the homicide. – Ruling: admissible live witnesses/ 3rd party and police investigation
· Dat Pham provided no alibi for the date and time of the homicide. – Ruling excluded
· On a prior occasion, Dat Pham entered Nguyen’s home through a sliding glass window which is the same method of entry as the perpetrator. Ruling: admissible 3rd party culpbaiblity and police investigation
· The killer possessed skill in wielding a bladed weapon. Dat Pham admitted that he is an expert in martial arts and that his favorite weapon is a sword. To demonstrate his proficiency in martial arts, Dat Pham dropped into the splits and stood again without ever touching the ground. When interviewed by police, officers noted that Pham had scars on his fingers which is consistent with someone using a bladed weapon and being cut in the process. Ruling: admissible on and investigation only so not truth of the matter asserted.
· Dat Pham’s behavior after the homicide evidenced consciousness of guilt.[6] Pham characterized his relationship with Nguyen as best friends yet did not attend the funeral. When police sought to obtain a buccal swab for DNA, Pham resisted and admitted that his DNA would be all over the house. Ruling: scars are not relevant but admissible on thorough investigation. Funeral is not admissible but admissible on thorough investigation
· Pham’s lies to police also evidence consciousness of guilt. Pham did not admit to being involved in drug dealing with Nguyen. He also told police that he met Nguyen’s girlfriend, Tran Lam, one time, but then characterized her as a little sister. Ruling: buccal swab is not relevant for any purpose. Lies not relevant for any purpose, victim girlfriend not relevant for any purpose
· Dat Pham was suspected in numerous other drug homicides and violent crime. Ruling: permitted to introduce that dat pham was a suspect in 2 homicides in los angeles and that information was shared with police department in San Jose –and investigation – only what was known to the police in San Jose. No trials within a trial. Can be expanded to information – shooting and other one don’t know about
· LA drug trafficking in los angeles not relevant
This circumstantial evidence linking Dat Pham, rather than Thoai Huynh, to the commission of the crime is far more substantial and far less speculative than the evidence held to be insufficient under Hall and in the cases cited by the prosecution. The cases cited by the prosecution that excluded speculative third-party culpability evidence involved mere propensity for violence evidence of another. (See People v. Gonzalez [California Supreme Court ruled the trial court properly excluded evidence of a mother’s childhood abuse to show she was the one that killed her daughter. Not only was the abuse suffered by her daughter different, but the evidence would not even have been admissible against the mother at her own trial][7]; People v. McWhorter [California Supreme Court held that mere propensity evidence and the speculative motive to kill to end child support were not enough to warrant competent third-party culpability evidence][8]; People v. Lewis [California Supreme Court held that remote prior acts of violence of another person are not enough for admission as third-party culpability evidence.][9]
The People also argue that simply because the police suspected another individual is not sufficient for admission of evidence third-party culpability. The defense does not disagree. In the DePriest case cited by the People, the Hall proffer by the defense did not specifically link anyone to the crime and was not inconsistent with defendant as the perpetrator.[10] Additionally, the Page case cited by the People involved the kidnap and rape-murder of 6 year-old girl from an apartment complex. In that case, the police had valid and objective reasons for quickly making defendant the prime suspect and electing not to investigate others more fully.[11] In the present case, the evidence proffered by the defense directly implicates Dat Pham as the sole killer, and Mr. Huynh was never a suspect in the homicide until the cold hit match over a decade later.
Moreover, the defense contends the cited evidence is also admissible to show failure of the police to adequately investigate. Just because evidence is inadmissible for one purpose does not make it barred when admissible for other purposes. The defense respectfully requests that this evidence be permitted to show a lack of thorough police investigation and third-party culpability.
III. MR. HUYNH HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE OF THIRD-PARTY CULPABILITY BASED ON RELIABLE EVIDENCE
At trial, the prosecution will present evidence that the biological material found on the left-hand fingernail clippings of the decedent match the DNA profile of Mr. Huynh. DNA forensic evidence is merely a form of circumstantial evidence linking a suspect to a crime. This type of circumstantial evidence is to be treated no differently than any other. Moreover, as has been shown time and again, DNA is not infallible scientific evidence. Lab error, contamination, and transfer are all viable areas of defense.
This court may be inclined to limit the admissibility of third-party culpability evidence because of the strength of the prosecution’s case based on the forensic DNA match. However, this would be error. The California appellate cite that there are circumstances where application of the evidentiary rules can violate a defendant’s right to present a defense.[12] Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that a defendant has a due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment and a right to Confrontation and Compulsory process under the Sixth Amendment to present this evidence.[13]
In Holmes v. South Carolina, the forensic evidence against the petitioner was extremely strong but the defense was seeking to admit evidence of a third party admitting to committing the crime to various witnesses. The trial court excluded the defense third-party culpability evidence citing that the evidence was not admissible if it merely casted suspicion on another. [14] The United States Supreme Court acknowledged that certain evidentiary rules, such as Federal Rule of Evidence 403(a), bars admission of evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact. However, the Supreme Court held that the strength of the prosecution’s case cannot be the limiting factor on presentation of defense evidence.[15] This invades the province of the jury to make certain factual findings. The Court held,
Just because the prosecution's evidence, if credited, would provide strong support for a guilty verdict, it does not follow that evidence of third-party guilt has only a weak logical connection to the central issues in the case. And where the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses or the reliability of its evidence is not conceded, the strength of the prosecution's case cannot be assessed without making the sort of factual findings that have traditionally been reserved for the trier of fact and that the South Carolina courts did not purport to make in this case.[16]
Citing Crane v. Kentucky[17], the Court held that application of the evidentiary rule in this fashion violated the defendant’s right to meaningfully present a complete defense.[18]
The weighing and balancing of the prejudicial and probative value of evidence required by Federal Rule of Evidence 403(a) mirrors the balancing outlined in California Evidence Rule 352. As such, the third-party culpability evidence proffered by the defense should be admitted regardless of the strength of the prosecution’s forensic evidence. The presentation of this evidence is crucial to Mr. Huynh’s ability to meaningfully present a complete defense.
Much of the evidence proffered by the defense is admissible under the California Rules of Evidence. The police inability establish the lack of an alibi and failure to inquire during the interrogation of Date Pham are perfect examples of the incomplete investigation by police and do not violate evidentiary rules. Dat Pham showing officers his prowess in martial arts and police observations of scars on his hands are also properly admissible evidence. Dat Pham’s lies to police evidencing consciousness of guilt are not inadmissible hearsay because they are not being offered for their truth. In fact, they are being offered for the exact opposite purpose to show Dat Pham was distancing himself from the drug trade with the victim and the homicide.