Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Los Angeles

1 Stephen M. Lathrop (S.B.
#126813)
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 924
2 Los Angeles, California 90017-4710
Tel. (213) 455-8100, ext. 3
3 Fax (213) 455-8101
4 Attorney for Defendant/Appellant

GERARDO ROMERO
5
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CASE NO. BA102638
11 CALIFORNIA,
Hon. Charles E. Horan, Judge
12 Plaintiff and Respondent,
Cal. Supreme Ct. No. S070686
13 v.
DEATH PENALTY CASE
14 GERARDO ROMERO,
VERIFIED APPLICATION OF
15 Defendant and Appellant. APPELLANT GERARDO ROMERO TO
CORRECT, COMPLETE, AND
16 SETTLE THE RECORD ON APPEAL;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
17 AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
STEPHEN M. LATHROP AND
18 EXHIBITS ATTACHED THERETO
19 TO THE HONORABLE CHARLES E. HORAN, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR
20 COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES:
21 Defendant and appellant Gerardo Romero respectfully submits
22 this verified application to correct, complete, and settle the
23 record on appeal in this automatic appeal from a judgment and
24 sentence of death.
25 This application is made pursuant to Penal Code sections
26 190.6 through 190.9, inclusive, and 1240.1, subdivision (e)(2),
27 and California Rules of Court, rules 33, 33.5, 35, and 39.50
28 through 39.56, inclusive, and is made on the grounds that each
1 SETTLE THE RECORD ON APPEAL

VERIFIED APPLICATION TO CORRECT, COMPLETE, AND
1 TOPICAL INDEX
Page
2
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL BASES FOR RECORD COMPLETION . . . . 2
4
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5
I. THE PROCESS OF CERTIFICATION FOR ACCURACY, AND
6 COMPLETION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE RECORD IN A CAPITAL
APPEAL, AND APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR A HEARING TO
7 ADDRESS THE COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY OF THE RECORD . . 5
8 II. APPELLANT REQUESTS CORRECTION OF THE REPORTER’S AND

CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT FOR ACCURACY . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9
A. THE REPORTER ’S TRANSCRIPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10
B. THE CLERK ’S TRANSCRIPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11
III. APPELLANT REQUESTS THAT THE MATERIAL DESCRIBED BELOW BE
12 INCLUDED IN THE RECORD ON APPEAL; THE MATERIAL IS PART
OF THE “ENTIRE RECORD” (I.E., NORMAL RECORD) IN A
13 CAPITAL APPEAL BUT WAS ERRONEOUSLY OMITTED . . . . . . 14
14 A. THE “ENTIRE RECORD ” IN A CAPITAL APPEAL . . . . . . . . 14
15 B. OMITTED “ENTIRE RECORD ” MATERIAL . . . . . . . . . . . 17
16 IV. APPELLANT REQUESTS AUGMENTATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL

WITH THE MATERIAL DESCRIBED BELOW AS THIS MATERIAL WILL
17 BE USEFUL TO APPELLANT ON APPEAL . . . . . . . . . . . 22
18 V. APPELLANT REQUESTS PERMISSION TO PREPARE A SETTLED

STATEMENT TO SETTLE AMBIGUITIES IN THE REPORTED ORAL
19 PROCEEDINGS AND TO SETTLE UNREPORTED ORAL PROCEEDINGS 26
20 A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
21 B. RECORD SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
22 C. REQUEST TO PREPARE A SETTLED STATEMENT WHETHER APPELLANT

WAS ABSENT DURING PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ;
23 STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF . . . . . . . . . 31
24 D. REQUEST TO PREPARE A SETTLED STATEMENT OF THE

UNREPORTED , IN -COURT DISCUSSIONS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
25 JURY BETWEEN COURT INTERPRETERS AND TESTIFYING
WITNESSES ; STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF . . . . . 34
26
E. REQUEST TO PREPARE A SETTLED STATEMENT OF PHYSICAL
27 DEMONSTRATIONS , INCOMPLETE DESCRIPTIONS , AND NON -VERBAL
GESTURES DURING TRIAL THAT ARE NOT DESCRIBED FOR THE
28 RECORD ; STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF . . . . . . 38
VERIFIED APPLICATION TO CORRECT, COMPLETE, -i-

AND SETTLE THE RECORD ON APPEAL
1 VI. APPELLANT REQUESTS AN ORDER SECURING HIS PERSONAL
PRESENCE AT ALL RECORD SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING
2 TO WHETHER APPELLANT WAS ABSENT DURING A PORTION OF THE
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3
VII. REQUEST FOR COPIES OF CERTAIN REPRODUCIBLE EXHIBITS TO
4 EXPEDITE THE REVIEW OF THE RECORD, FACILITATE REFERENCE
TO THE RECORD, AND ELIMINATE THE COST OF COUNSEL HAVING
5 TO TRAVEL TO THE TRIAL COURT MERELY TO EXAMINE THE
EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6
VIII. REQUEST THAT THE “ENTIRE RECORD” ON APPEAL
7 INCLUDE ALL DOCUMENTS LODGED AND/OR FILED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE INSTANT APPLICATION TO
8 CORRECT, COMPLETE, AND SETTLE THE RECORD ON
APPEAL, INCLUDING THE REPORTER’S NOTES OF ALL
9 ORAL PROCEEDINGS RELATING THERETO . . . . . . . . 46
10 IX. REQUEST FOR ORDER THAT THE COMPLETED RECORD NOT BE

CERTIFIED UNTIL 20 DAYS AFTER DELIVERY OF ALL REQUESTED
11 MATERIAL TO APPELLATE COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
12 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
13 DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. LATHROP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
14 EXHIBITS
15 Juror Questionnaire, Juror No. 7835 . . . . . . . . . . . 53
16 Juror Questionnaire, Juror No. 6991 . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
17 Reporter’s Transcript, August 2, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . 103
18 Subpena Duces Tecum and Application for

Subpena Duces Tecum Criminal, June 18, 1996 . . . . 106
19
Superior Court file, Case No. BA084773 . . . . . . . . . . 107
20
People v. Watson, Cal. Supreme Court No. S024471,
21 order filed May 14, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
22 People v. Alfaro, Cal. Supreme Court No. S027730,

letter to trial court clerk, May 9, 1997 . . . . . . 240
23
24
25
26
27
28
-ii-
VERIFIED APPLICATION TO CORRECT, COMPLETE, AND SETTLE THE RECORD ON APPEAL
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Defendant and appellant Gerardo Romero respectfully submits
4 this verified application to correct, complete, and settle the
5 record on appeal in connection with the automatic appeal from a
6 judgment and sentence of death imposed by this court on May 22,
7 1998. [CT 11:2812.]1
8 On April 12, 2002, the California Supreme Court appointed
9 Stephen M. Lathrop as counsel for appellant in the above
10 automatic appeal. (Declaration of Stephen M. Lathrop (“Lathrop
11 Decl.”), p. 48, ¶ 3.)
12 The record on appeal was delivered to appellate counsel on
13 April 18, 2002. The reporter’s transcript is comprised of
14 eighteen volumes consisting of 1,932 pages. The clerk’s
15 transcript is comprised of (1) two volumes of section 987.9
16 documents filed under seal consisting of 431 pages, (2) eleven
17 volumes consisting of 2,873 pages, and (3) one volume entitled
18 “Supplemental Two” consisting of 6 pages. (Lathrop Decl., p. 48,
19 ¶ 4.)
20 On July 3, 2002, this Court denied appellant’s timely
21 application, filed June 28, 2002, for a 90-day extension of time
22 to file appellant’s motion to correct, augment and/or settle the
23 record on appeal, but granted appellant a 60-day extension to
24 and including September 13, 2002, to file the request for
25 corrections or additions to the record. (Lathrop Decl., pp. 48-
26
1
“CT” refers to the clerk’s transcript and “RT” refers
27 to the reporter’s transcript. Except where otherwise indicated,
citations to CT and RT are followed by the applicable volume and
28 page number in the format “vol:page”.

1 49, ¶ 5.) On September 12, 2002, this Court granted appellant’s
2 timely application, filed September 12, 2002, for an additional
3 extension of time of 5 court days, to and including September
4 20, 2002, to file appellant’s motion to correct, augment and/or
5 settle the record on appeal. (Lathrop Decl., p. 49, ¶ 5.)
6 LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL BASES FOR RECORD COMPLETION
7 A complete and accurate record is an essential component of
8 appellate review and due process and a requirement for the
9 effective assistance of appellate counsel. (People v. Barton
10 (1978) 21 Cal.3d 513.) Former Justice Goldberg explained that
11 the most basic and fundamental tool of an
12 appellate advocate’s profession is the
13 complete transcript, through which his
14 trained fingers may leaf and his trained
15 eyes may roam in search of an error, a lead
16 to an error, or even a basis upon which to
17 urge a change in the established law.
18 Anything short of a complete transcript is
19 incompatible with effective appellate
20 advocacy. [Hardy v. United States (1964)
21 375 U.S. 277, 282.]
22 Appeals are likely to involve issues which turn on the very
23 specific words contained in the transcript (e.g., the propriety
24 of excluding a prospective juror pursuant to Witherspoon v.
25 Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 and Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469
26 U.S. 412), or on matters conducted in an “off the record”
27 / / /
28 / / /

1 proceeding, Penal Code section 190.9 notwithstanding.2 (See,
2 e.g., People v. Gzikowski (1982) 32 Cal.3d 580.) Furthermore,
3 counsel’s failure to provide the reviewing court with a record
4 adequate to permit resolution of a claim on appeal may result in
5 waiver of the claim. (People v. Malabag (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th
6 1419, 1425.)
7 The reasons for requiring a complete and accurate record of
8 all the proceedings in the lower court also include the
9 constitutional role which appellate review plays in capital
10 cases, and California’s independent interest in the reliability
11 of its death judgments. (Pulley v. Harris (1984) 465 U.S. 37,
12 53; People v. Stanworth (1969) 71 Cal.2d 820, 832-834.)
13 The United States Supreme Court recognizes the special need
14 for an accurate and complete record in a capital case. In
15 Parker v. Dugger (1991) 498 U.S. 308, 321, for example, the
16 court emphasized the “crucial role of meaningful appellate
17 review in ensuring that the death penalty is not imposed
18 arbitrarily or irrationally,” and held that “meaningful
19 appellate review requires that the appellate court consider” the
20 “actual” accurate record of defendant’s trial. In Dobbs v. Zant
21 (1993) 506 U.S. 357, the court relied on this principle in
22 holding that the federal habeas court erred in refusing to
23 consider the newly discovered transcript of trial counsel’s
24 closing arguments in assessing Dobbs’ claim of ineffective
25 assistance of trial counsel.
26
27 2
Except where otherwise indicated or clear from the
context, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
28 References to rules are to the California Rules of Court.

1 The California Supreme Court recognizes the “critical role
2 of a proper and complete record in facilitating meaningful
3 appellate review.” (People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43,
4 63.) The importance of a complete and accurate record in a
5 capital case is also reflected in sections 190.6 through 190.9,
6 and in rule 39.51, which entitles a capital defendant to the
7 “entire record” of the proceedings in the lower court. The
8 “entire record” in a capital appeal includes “all documents
9 filed or lodged in the municipal and superior court files in the
10 case,” juror questionnaires, and transcripts of all proceedings
11 in the lower court, including discussions in chambers, jury voir
12 dire, and municipal court proceedings. (Rule 39.51(a), (b).)
13 A complete and accurate appellate record is necessary to
14 ensure appellant’s rights to due process under the Fifth and
15 Fourteenth Amendments, effective assistance of counsel under
16 Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, meaningful appellate review as
17 mandated by the Eighth Amendment, as well as the corollary state
18 constitutional rights (Cal. Const., art. 1, §§ 7, 15 and 17),
19 and the right to have the record on appeal prepared in
20 conformity with state statutory requirements and rules of court
21 as set forth above. (See Marks v. Superior Court (2002) 27
22 Cal.4th 176; People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701; Chessman v.
23 Teets (1957) 354 U.S. 156; Evitts v. Lucey (1985) 469 U.S. 387;
24 Parker v. Dugger (1991) 498 U.S. 308, 321 [defining meaningful
25 appellate review, in part, upon review of the full trial
26 record]; Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 U.S. 153, 167, 198 (joint
27 opinion of Stewart, Powell and Stevens, JJ.) [Complete
28 transcript and record is important “safeguard against

1 arbitrariness and caprice”]; Douglas v. California (1973) 372
2 U.S. 353, 358 [noting the benefit of “counsel’s examination into
3 the record, research of the law, and marshaling of arguments on
4 [client’s] behalf”].) Access to “the entire [trial] transcript”
5 is essential for effective appellate advocacy. (Hardy v. United
6 States (1964) 375 U.S. 277, 282; see id. at p. 288 (Goldberg,
7 J., concurring) [“an appointed lawyer ... needs a complete trial
8 transcript to discharge his full responsibility ....”]; People
9 v. Barton (1978) 21 Cal.3d 513, 518-519.)
10 ARGUMENT
11 I.
12 THE PROCESS OF CERTIFICATION FOR ACCURACY, AND COMPLETION AND
13 SETTLEMENT OF THE RECORD IN A CAPITAL APPEAL, AND APPELLANT’S
14 REQUEST FOR A HEARING TO ADDRESS THE COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY
15 OF THE RECORD
16 Rule 39.55 governs certification of the record for
17 accuracy. (See also § 190.8, subd. (g).) Following delivery of
18 the record, “appellate counsel shall file any request for
19 corrections or additional transcripts” within a specified time.
20 (Rule 39.55(b).) This rule applies to both defense counsel and
21 the prosecutor. (§ 190.8, subd. (I).)
22 Not later than 15 days after the request is filed, the
23 trial court holds a hearing to “address the completeness and
24 accuracy of the record, in accordance with the procedures and
25 timelines set out in rule 39.54(d).” (Rule 39.55(c).)
26 Appellant respectfully requests a hearing to address the
27 completeness and accuracy of the record. (Rule 39.55(c); Marks
28 v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 187 [trial court

1 “holds a hearing ‘to address the completeness and accuracy of
2 the record, in accordance with the procedures and timeliness set
3 out in rule 39.54(d)’ (rule 39.55(c))”].)
4 When the record has been completed and corrected, the
5 trial court certifies the record as accurate and redelivers the
6 record to the clerk. (Rule 39.55(d).)
7 The trial court’s authority to make orders for the
8 correction and augmentation of the record in capital cases is
9 derived from the statutes and court rules governing preparation
10 of capital case records. Rule 39.51(c), for example, states
11 that the rule describing the contents of the clerk’s and
12 reporter’s transcript in capital cases “does not affect the
13 power of the Supreme Court or superior court to order inclusion
14 of additional matter.” Rule 35(h) confirms the “superior
15 court’s responsibility for the prompt preparation of records on
16 appeal in capital cases,” and section 190.8 requires the trial
17 court to monitor the preparation of the record in a capital
18 case. (See also Rules 39.54 and 39.55.) Section 1240.1,
19 subdivision (e)(2), provides that the duties imposed on trial
20 counsel in a capital appeal to ensure that the entire record is
21 prepared and to check for errors and omissions “shall not
22 foreclose the defendant's appellate counsel from requesting
23 additions or corrections to the entire record on appeal in
24 either the trial court or the Supreme Court.”
25 Lapses in trial and settled statement procedures reflect an
26 inattention to the critical role of a proper and complete record
27 in facilitating meaningful appellate review. (People v.
28 Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 62-63.)

1 II.
2 APPELLANT REQUESTS CORRECTION OF THE REPORTER’S AND CLERK’S
3 TRANSCRIPT FOR ACCURACY
4 The reporter’s and clerk’s transcript contain several
5 errors, including inaccurate or incomplete transcriptions of
6 questions or answers and misnumbered, illegible, or missing
7 pages. Appellant may propose corrections to errors in a
8 transcript, and then “it shall be the duty of the trial judge to
9 finally determine the record.” (People v. Chessman (1950) 35
10 Cal.2d 455, 461.)
11 When the trial court determines that the record is
12 incorrect it must order the reporter to correct it. (Williams
13 v. Davis (1946) 27 Cal.2d 746, 753; Rules 39.54(d), 39.55(c).)
14 The fact that trial counsel may have previously reviewed the
15 record and either requested corrections or indicated that it was
16 correct does not foreclose appellate counsel from requesting
17 additional corrections, nor does it relieve the court from
18 making those corrections. (§ 1240.1, subd. (e)(2); Rule
19 39.55(b), (c).)
20 Appellant recognizes that corrections to the record are not
21 required to include “immaterial typographical errors that cannot
22 conceivably cause confusion.” (§ 190.8, subd. (c).) At this
23 early stage in the appeal, however, appellant cannot be certain
24 what issues will be raised on appeal or in state and federal
25 postconviction proceedings, and therefore what typographical
26 errors and mistranscriptions may ultimately be important. In
27 order to provide the reviewing court with an accurate
28 transcript, and consistent with counsel’s responsibility to

1 preserve an adequate record for review in both the state and
2 federal courts, appellant has listed all errors and requests
3 that this Court order the correction of all errors. However,
4 the errors that may be merely “immaterial typographical errors”
5 are identified below by an asterisk next to the page cite for
6 the error.
7 A. THE REPORTER ’S TRANSCRIPT
8 Appellant requests that the following errors and/omissions
9 in the reporter’s transcript be corrected for accuracy:
10 1. The transcript of the proceedings on December 20,
11 1995, in Department 100, reported by Raquel A.
12 Rodriguez, concludes without a statement that the
13 proceedings were concluded. [RT 1:8.] A statement
14 should be included whether the proceedings were
15 concluded;
16 2. There are two sets of pages numbered 1016 through
17 1023, inclusive, reported by Yvonne Gallegos [RT
18 2:1016-1023];
19 3. The reporter’s transcript at page 1356, line 6,
20 reported by Deborah D. Couwenberg, incorrectly states
21 that defendant is present with counsel [RT Vol. 4,
22 1356:6]. Defendant was not present [RT Vol. 4,
23 1356:18-20];
24 4. The indices are incomplete as they fail to include an
25 index of proceedings (e.g., pretrial discussions, jury
26 voir dire, pretrial jury instructions, opening
27 statement, etc.); and,
28 / / /

1 5. Typographical errors and missing transcriptions due to
2 poor photocopying, as listed in the following table:3
3 RT page:line Error Proposed Correction

4 Master Index Vol 3, Page 1036 Vol. 3, Page 1046
Pre-Trial
5 Phase Index;
January 17,
6 1997 hearing
date
7
Vol. 4 of 18 June 6, 1997 June 9, 1997
8 (cover)
9 Vol. 10 of 18 February 10, 1998 February 19, 1998

(cover)
10 18:26* READY REALLY
11 36:5* DENOVO DE NOVO
12 37:1* ON AND
13 39:1* HELD HOLD

1014:7* WORDS WORST
14
1020:13* GE BE
15
1356:6 THE DEFENDANT WITH HIS DEFENSE
16
1358:4 CASTELLO BROUGHAM
17 1368:26 CASTELLO BROUGHAM
18 1380:1 CASTELLO BROUGHAM
19 1454:19 BROUGHAM WHITE
20 1512:27 [line missing due to I DON'T WANT TO SAY

poor photocopy – see ANYTHING THAT
21 RT Computer Disks for
correction]
22 1512:28 [line missing due to MAKES A JUROR FEEL
poor photocopy – see THAT IT IS THEIR DUTY
23 RT Computer Disks for FOR A
correction]
24
25
3
26 Court reporters Cheryl Duarte (RT 12-29), Misty L.
Wyatt (RT 33-1000), Katherine Parker-Rijke (RT 1003-1015), Mark
27 A. Peterson (RT Vol. 3), Deborah D. Couwenberg (RT 1356-1445,
1454), Jennifer S. Row (RT 1610), and Yvonne Gallegos (RT Vols.
28 4 and 10, and RT 1016-1045, 1512-1531, 1922-3547).

1 1521:3 BONNIE, BRAE BONNIE BRAE,
2 1526:5 AS AX
3 1526:6 AS AX
4 1527:25 AKW ADW

1610:15 14 13
5
1922:13* DO AT DO IT
6
1938:11 THE COURT PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO.
7 9
8 1946:2 PERSONAL PENALTY

1986:16 PRISONERS PARISHIONERS
9
1993:15* LAWYER LAWYERS
10
2014:1* ASSUME AS SOON
11
2021:8 NO. 10 NO. 9
12 2021:17 NO. 10 NO. 9
13 2028:17* MEATED METED
14 2038:16 PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. THE COURT:
6:
15
2060:18* TO THE
16 2105:9* DOWN TOWN
17 2264:10* PROTECTED PROTRACTED
18 2271:3* VIEW TRUE
19 2296:3* CASE IN THIS CASE

2305:13* ATTEMPT ATTEMPTED
20
2314:19* ARE OR
21
2350:16* THE THEN
22
2363:5 WERE YOU YOU WERE
23 2377:1* PEER PIER
24 2377:2* PEER PIER
25 2390:21* WALLSTREET WALL STREET

2417:21* ASSUME AS SOON
26
2438:13* HEAR HERE
27
2395:7* DOW DOWN
28
VERIFIED APPLICATION TO CORRECT, COMPLETE, 10

1 2401:7 JUROR NO. 4 JUROR NO. 3

2438:13* HEAR HERE
5
2452:1* PROSPECTIVE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE
6
2487:1 SAVED SHAVED
7
2490:1 GAME GANG
8 2536:24* SEEN SCENE
9 2538:25* DECENT DESCENT
10 2539:16* NOISE NOSE
11 2543:13* [Incorrect line [correct line

numbering and numbering and delete
12 erroneous iconic iconic symbols]
symbols]
13 2587:5 IN DEPTH ADEPT
14 2658:25 TEMPTED ATTEMPTED
15 2788:6* MAY MY
16 2868:11 THE COURT MR. BROUGHAM

2890:5* I W THE
17
2974:13 GAME GANG
18
2991:5 THAT YOU YOU THAT
19
3004:9* THEY THERE
20 3013:9* DOING DURING
21 3024:14* ND AND
22 3026:12 ENTERED EXITED
23 3031:8* NOON EVENING

3041:8* NOON EVENING
24
3042:8* 1T AT
25
3052:14 PASENCIO PICENO
26 3069:23* MS. MR.
27 3305:13 YES, I DO. THE WITNESS: YES I DO.
28 3316:25 HOW HAU

1 3336:6* MTHEY’RE THEY’RE
2 3341:25* GOD GOOD
3 3354:4* STATE YOU, MUST STATE, YOU MUST
4 3355:5* ADJUST A JUST

3359:10* FOOLING FOLLOWING
5
3359:22 DEUK AHN DUK AN
6
3360:19 DEUK AHN DUK AN
7
3372:6 PASENCIO PICENO
8 3375:15 PASENCIO PICENO
9 3375:19 PASENCIO PICENO
10 3375:26 DEUK AHN DUK AN
11 3376:14* SLRUG SLUG

3384:1* JOT GOT
12
3389:27* HEARDER HEARD
13
3395:7* BALDARAM BALDARAMMA
14
3396:3* LATIOS LATINOS
15 3400:14* SWAR SWEAR
16 3405 3405 - 4545 3405 - 3545
[pagination] [pagination]
17
3547:8 NOON EVENING
18
19 B. THE CLERK ’S TRANSCRIPT
20 Appellant requests that the following errors and/omissions

21 in the clerk’s transcript be corrected for accuracy:
22 1. The index omits reference to the document entitled
23 Notice of Motion to Continue and Declaration, filed
24 June 13, 1995, which appears out of chronological
25 order at CT 2:286;
26 2. The index erroneously lists “Notice of Motion to
27 Continue and Declaration 6/13/95" at CT 3:586 [CT
28 Index, page 9]; this document does not appear there;

1 3. The index is missing an entry for Juror Questionnaire
2 No. 9891 [CT Index, page 10] at CT 6:1449;
3 4. The index listing of “JUROR QUESTIONNAIRES” omits
4 identifying information (i.e., the juror number
5 corresponding to the particular questionnaire) so that
6 the questionnaires can be separately identified;
7 5. The index to penalty phase exhibits omits reference to
8 People’s Exhibits 27A through 27M, inclusive, and 28A
9 through 28I, inclusive [CT 11:2784];
10 6. The index omits the minute order for May 22, 1998 [CT
11 11:2823];
12 7. The index contains an entry for “Juror Note” and a
13 corresponding filed date of “5/5/98" [CT Index, page
14 14]. This appears to be incorrect. The clerk’s stamp
15 on appellant’s copy is illegible, but the juror note
16 was received by the court on February 19, 1998, not
17 May 5, 1998 [CT 11:2757, 11:2872];
18 8. There is an unnumbered single page immediately after
19 CT 2:285, which should be numbered 285A to preserve
20 pagination;
21 9. There are multiple, duplicate minute orders for May
22 22, 1998 [CT 11:2820-2841];
23 10. There is an unnumbered page between CT 4:1074 and CT
24 4:1075, which is page 25 of Juror Questionnaire No.
25 3242; to preserve pagination, this page should be
26 numbered 1074A;
27 11. The Juror Questionnaire for Juror No. 2736 is
28 partially illegible. [CT 9:2349-2373.] The juror was

1 seated as Juror No. 1. [RT 8-1:2157.] Appellant does
2 not have a better copy;
4 illegible. [CT 9:2399-2423.] This juror was seated
5 as Juror No. 3. [RT 8-2:2336.] A legible copy is
6 attached hereto at pages 53-77; and,
8 partially illegible. [CT 10:2623-2647.] This juror
9 was seated as Juror No. 12. [RT 8-2:2353.] A legible
10 copy is attached hereto at pages 78-102.
11 III.
12 APPELLANT REQUESTS THAT THE MATERIAL DESCRIBED BELOW BE INCLUDED
13 IN THE RECORD ON APPEAL; THIS MATERIAL IS PART OF THE “ENTIRE
14 RECORD” (I.E., THE NORMAL RECORD) IN A CAPITAL APPEAL BUT WAS
15 ERRONEOUSLY OMITTED
16 A request for additional record which should have been
17 included as part of the “entire record” is a request for
18 documents to which appellant is entitled by statute and rule
19 without any particularized showing as to how those materials may
20 be useful on appeal. (See § 190.7; rule 39.51(a), (b)).4
21 A. THE “ENTIRE RECORD ” IN A CAPITAL APPEAL
22 The record on appeal in a capital case consists of all the
23 reporter’s transcripts5 and a clerk’s transcript. (§ 190.7,
24
4
25 Appellant has made a diligent search for copies of all
documents requested in this application, but except where
26 attached hereto as exhibits has been unable to locate the
documents. (Lathrop Decl., pp. 49, ¶ 6.)
27
5
Section 190.9, subdivision (a)(1), requires, “In any
28 case in which a death sentence may be imposed, all proceedings

1 subd. (a)(1); see rule 39.51(a).) “The clerk’s transcript shall
2 include all documents filed or lodged in the municipal and
3 superior court files in the case, including all items listed in
4 rule 33(a)6 and juror questionnaires of all potential jurors,
5 regardless of whether the jurors were selected to sit on the
6 case.” (Rule 39.51(a)(1).) The statute also requires the
7 inclusion of “[a] copy of any other paper or record on file or
8 lodged with the superior or municipal court and a transcript of
10 conducted in the municipal and superior courts, including all

conferences and proceedings, whether in open court, in
11 conference in the courtroom, or in chambers, shall be conducted
on the record with a court reporter present. The court reporter
12 shall prepare and certify a daily transcript of all proceedings
commencing with the preliminary hearing. Proceedings prior to
13 the preliminary hearing shall be reported [and transcribed when
14 the municipal or superior court receives notice that the death
penalty is being sought].” (See Rule 39.52.)
15 6
Rule 33(a)(1) lists the following items to be included
16 in the clerk’s transcript in an appeal by the defendant: “(a)
the notice of appeal, any certificate of probable cause executed
17 and filed by the court, and any request for additional record
and any order made pursuant thereto; (b) the indictment,
18 information or accusation with any amendments; (c) any demurrer;
(d) any motion for a new trial, with supporting and opposing
19 memoranda and affidavits; (e) all minutes of the court relating
to the action; (f) the verdict; (g) the judgment or order
20 appealed from and any abstract of judgment – commitment; (h) all
written instructions given or refused indicating on each
21 instruction the party requesting it; (i) all written
communications, formal or informal, between the court and the
22
jury or any individual jurors; (j) any written opinion of the
23 court; (k) any transcript of an electronic sound or
sound-and-video recording that was provided to the jury or
24 tendered to the court under rule 203.5[;] ... (l) each written
motion made by defendant and denied in whole or in part, with
25 supporting and opposing memoranda and related affidavits, search
warrants and returns, and the transcript of any preliminary
26 examination or grand jury hearing related thereto; (m) the
report of the probation officer; [and,] (n) any certified
27 records of a court or of the Department of Corrections
introduced in evidence to prove a prior conviction or prior
28 prison term.”

1 any other oral proceeding reported in the superior or municipal
2 court pertaining to the trial of the cause.” (§ 190.7, subd.
3 (a)(1).)
4 Additionally, “all documents filed confidentially under
5 Penal Code section 987.9 or 987.3 shall be sealed and copies
6 provided only to the reviewing court and to counsel for the
7 defendant to whom the documents relate. All transcripts of in
8 camera proceedings shall be sealed and copies provided only to
9 the reviewing court and to counsel for those parties present at
10 the proceedings.” (Rule 39.51(b).)
11 The California Supreme Court recently emphasized that
12 neither the trial court nor counsel may
13 decline to include any portion of the
14 proceedings in the record on appeal. [Marks
15 v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p.
16 190.]
17 Moreover, if at any time after transmittal to the reviewing
18 court the clerk of the trial court or the reporter learns that a
19 document required to be included in the record on appeal was
20 inadvertently omitted, the clerk is required to copy the
21 document or the reporter is required to prepare the transcript.
22 The clerk is then required to certify and transmit the document
23 or transcript to the reviewing court as an augmentation to the
24 record without the necessity of an order of the court. The
25 clerk also must give notice of the transmittal and provide
26 copies of the documents to the parties. (Rule 35(e).)7
27
7
Rule 35(e) provides, in part:
28 If at any time the clerk or reporter

1 B. OMITTED “ENTIRE RECORD ” MATERIAL
2 Appellant’s review of the reporter’s transcript reveals
3 that the following material is missing from the normal record on
4 appeal:
5 DATE NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS/REPORTER’S NAME

6 1. 12/19/96 Transcript of oral proceedings; pretrial
7 conference. (C/R Yvonne Gallegos.)
8 Note: The minute order for this hearing states
9 that a pretrial conference hearing was “held
10 and continued to 1-17-97.” [CT 2:425.]
11 2. 6/9/97 Transcript of sealed oral proceedings held in
12 the presence of appellant and defense counsel,
13 but outside the presence of the prosecutor.
14 [RT 4:1386-1397; CT 2:454.] (C/R Deborah D.
15 Couwenberg.)
16 / / /
17 / / /
18 / / /
19 / / /
20 / / /
21
learns that a document or transcript
22
required by rule 33, 34, or 39.5 to be
23 included in the record on appeal was
inadvertently omitted, the clerk shall copy
24 the document or the reporter shall prepare
the transcript, and the clerk shall certify
25 and transmit the document or transcript to
the reviewing court as an augmentation to
26 the record without the necessity of a court
order. The clerk shall give the parties
27 prompt notice of the transmittal and send
copies as provided in this subdivision and
28 in subdivision (c).

1 3. 9/30/97 Transcript of oral proceedings. (C/R Unknown.)
2 Note: Appellant is not in possession of a
3 minute order for this date. The transcript of
4 the proceedings on August 28, 1997, reported by
5 Deborah D. Couwenberg, shows a time waiver to
6 September 30, 1997 (as zero of thirty days),
7 and concludes with the court’s statement that
8 the next hearing is set for September 30, 1997;
9 the reporter’s notes also state that the case
10 is continued to September 30, 1997. [RT
11 4:1459.]
12 4. 11/26/97 Transcript of oral proceedings. (C/R Yvonne
13 Gallegos.)
14 Note: The minute order for this hearing states
15 that the case was called for jury trial and
16 then continued with time waivers, but the
17 reporter’s notes states that no hearing was
18 held. [CT 2:470; RT 4:1497.]
19 Appellant’s review of the clerk’s transcript reveals that
20 the following material is missing from the normal record on
21 appeal:
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28

1 DATE DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
2 5. 10/10/94 Transcription of the audio taped interview of
3 appellant by Detective Salazar on October 10,
4 1994, and the audiotape thereof. Counsel has a
5 copy of the audiotape, but not a transcription
6 thereof [RT 1:26, 2:1025-1026, 11:2751-2754,
7 11:2783-2784 (citations in the record to the
8 tape and transcript); Rule 33(a)(1)(K).]
9 6. 12/21/94 Reporter’s transcript of hearing held pursuant
10 to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118;
11 transcript sealed; Patricia McNeal, CSR No.
12 4458, court reporter. [CT 1:2, 1:15-16, 1:234
13 (motion denied).] (Rules 33.5(a), 39.52(f).)
14 7. 8/2/95 Reporter’s transcript of proceedings in the
15 municipal court, a copy of which is attached
16 hereto at pages 103-105. (§ 190.9, subd.
17 (a)(1); Rule 39.52.)

8. 6/3/96 The “Property Report” [CT 363] attached to the
18
Notice of Motion and Motion to Suppress
19
Evidence Pursuant to Penal Code, § 1538.5;
20
Points and Authorities in Support Thereof. [CT
21
2:362-366; Rule 33(a)(1)(l).]
22
9. 6/7/96 The “Murder Book” on victim “Afable” [CT 403]
23
referred to in the People’s Response to
24
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Defendant’s
25
Statement. [CT 402-403; Rule 33(a)(1)(l).]
26
/ / /
27
/ / /
28

1 10. 6/7/96 The “Murder Book” on victim “Hau” [CT 2:403]
2 referred to in the People’s Response to
3 Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Defendant’s
4 Statement. [CT 2:402-403; Rule 33(a)(1)(l).]
5 11. 6/7/96 The “Arrest Report” [CT 2:403] referred to in
6 the People’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to
7 Suppress Defendant’s Statement. [CT 2:402-403;
8 Rule 33(a)(1)(l).]
9 12. 6/7/96 The “Follow-Up Investigation Report” [CT 403]
10 referred to in the People’s Response to
11 Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Defendant’s
12 Statement. [CT 402-403; Rule 33(a)(1)(l).]
13 13. 6/7/96 The “Arrest Report Continuation Sheet” [CT
14 2:407] referred to in the People’s Response to
15 Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence
16 Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1538.5. [CT
17 2:404-408; Rule 33(a)(1)(l).]

14. 6/7/96 The “Investigator’s Final Report” [CT 2:407]
18
referred to in the People’s Response to
19
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence
20
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 1538.5. [CT
21
2:404-408; Rule 33(a)(1)(l).]
22
15. 6/7/96 The “Murder Book” [CT 2:407] referred to in the
23
People’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to
24
Suppress Evidence Pursuant to Penal Code
25
Section 1538.5. [CT 2:404-408; Rule
26
33(a)(1)(l).]
27
/ / /
28

1 16. 6/18/96 All documents contained in that certain
2 envelope in the clerk’s file with a face page
3 entitled Subpena Duces Tecum and Application
4 for Subpena Duces Tecum Criminal; a copy of the
5 face page is attached hereto at page 106. (§
6 190.9, subd. (a)(1); Rule 39.52.)
7 17. 2/18/98 The entire contents of the Superior Court file
8 in Case No. BA084773 [RT 9:2460 (judicial
9 notice of contents of entire file)], a copy of
10 which is attached hereto at pages 107-238. (§
11 190.9, subd. (a)(1); Rule 39.52.)
12 18. 2/24/98 The written jury instructions given and/or
13 refused in the guilt-phase of the trial, which
14 were ordered filed [CT 11:2777]. [Rule
15 33(a)(1)(h)).]
16 On August 14, 2002, appellant’s counsel reviewed the

17 superior court file and trial exhibits in the above-entitled
18 case. While reviewing the superior court file, counsel spoke
19 with Clerk Eva (tel. 213-974-5932/31), who identified herself as
20 the trial clerk responsible for maintaining the Romero superior
21 court file. Counsel requested that clerk Eva provide him with
22 (1) a copy of the transcripts of the sealed proceedings
23 identified above in item numbers 2 and 6 (rules 33.5(a),
24 39.52(f)), (2) a copy of the contents of the envelope identified
25 above in item number 16, and (3) and a copy of the written jury
26 instructions identified above in item number 18. Clerk Eva told
27 counsel that she could not provide the requested transcripts
28 and/or documents absent a court order directing that counsel be

1 provided copies, except for the written jury instructions which
2 she could not immediately locate in the clerk’s file. (Lathrop
3 Decl., p. 49, ¶ 7.)
4 The transcript of the sealed proceedings identified above
5 in item number 2 also should be provided in the form of a
6 computer disk. (Rules 39.54(f), 39.55(e) [“Each transcript of a
7 confidential proceeding shall be placed on a separate disk and
8 clearly labeled as confidential.”].)
9 IV.
10 APPELLANT REQUESTS AUGMENTATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL WITH THE
11 MATERIAL DESCRIBED BELOW AS THIS MATERIAL WILL BE USEFUL TO
12 APPELLANT ON APPEAL
13 In the preceding section, appellant requests that the court
14 order that certain material be included in the record on appeal
15 which is part of the “entire record” in a capital appeal but
16 erroneously omitted from the record sent to counsel. (Ante, §
17 III.B.)
18 The material identified in the preceding section in item
19 numbers 5 and 8 through 15, inclusive, was considered by the
20 trial court at various stages of the proceedings and relied upon
21 by either the prosecution or defense or both, and appears to
22 have been either lodged or filed in the trial court (Lathrop
23 Decl., p. 50, ¶ 8). The material appears, therefore, to be part
24 of the “entire record” on appeal. (Rule 39.51(a)(1); § 190.7,
25 subd. (a)(1).) However, if the court determines that any of
26 these items are not part of the “entire record” on appeal, then
27 appellant requests that they be included in the record by
28 augmentation.

1 The California Supreme Court has affirmed that, in general,
2 “‘the rules [regarding the augmentation procedure] impliedly
3 call for great liberality in its exercise.’” (People v. Gaston
4 (1978) 20 Cal.3d 476, 482). Rule 39.51(c) states that its
5 delineation of the record in a capital appeal “does not affect
6 the power of the Supreme Court or superior court to order
7 inclusion of additional matter” not specified in that section.
8 A request for augmentation of the record requires an
9 explanation from counsel how the material “may be useful on
10 appeal” (People v. Gaston, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 482). The
11 standard is very liberal, however, and favors inclusion of
12 additional material. (See People v. Brooks (1980) 26 Cal.3d
13 471, 484.) As the California Supreme Court explained, “the
14 litigant need only establish with some certainty how the
15 materials he requests may be useful to him on appeal. The
16 showing of ‘some certainty’ must be made as to the manner in
17 which the materials may be useful, not as to the contents of the
18 materials themselves.” (People v. Gaston, supra, 20 Cal.3d at
19 p. 482 (emphasis in original).)
20 Each of the items described above may be useful to
21 appellant on appeal. The transcript of the tape-recorded
22 interview of appellant by Detective Salazar on October 10, 1994,
23 identified above in the preceding section in item number 5,
24 contains potentially exculpatory evidence relating to
25 intoxication. During a trial conference, the prosecutor asserts
26 that the tape reveals appellant’s statement that “he does not
27 remember any details because he was drunk out of his mind ....”
28 [RT 11:2752 (emphasis added).] The court subsequently asks the

1 prosecutor, “You really want to put that on?” [RT 11:2753.]
2 The prosecutor replies,
3 Well, the thing that it does, and I realize
4 that it brings in other factors or defenses,
5 the only thing it does is ties him directly
6 to the robbery. [RT 11:2753 (emphasis
7 added).]
8 This evidence may be useful to appellant on appeal because
9 intoxication may show that appellate was incapable of forming
10 the specific intent necessary to sustain his convictions of the
11 various offenses. (§ 22.) Evidence of intoxication also may be
12 relevant penalty-phase mitigation evidence. (CALJIC No. 8.85.)
13 Trial defense counsel’s failure to present a defense of
14 intoxication and/or his failure to present evidence of
15 intoxication as penalty phase mitigation evidence may raise an
16 issue whether appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to
17 effective assistance of counsel.
18 The documents identified in the preceding section in item
19 numbers 8 through 15, inclusive, were either attached to, or
20 explicitly referenced in, the trial motions (and opposition
21 papers) to which they correspond. The defense motion to
22 suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5 was denied. [CT
23 2:362-366; RT 9:2469-2470.] The documents referenced in the
24 motion and opposition papers identified above in item numbers 8
25 and 13 through 15, inclusive, may be useful to appellant on
26 appeal because they may reveal evidence that tends to show that
27 the trial court committed error when it denied the motion.
28 / / /

1 The defense motion to suppress defendant’s statement was
2 never ruled on, and it became moot when the prosecution decided
3 not to use the statement and appellant did not testify in either
4 the guilt or penalty phases of the trial. [CT 2:367-369; RT
5 11:2783-2784.] Nevertheless, the documents referenced in the
6 prosecution’s opposition to the motion, identified above in item
7 numbers 9 through 12, inclusive, may be useful to appellant on
8 appeal in connection with the issue whether defense counsel’s
9 failure to obtain a ruling on the motion constituted ineffective
10 assistance of counsel. The presence of the statement, which the
11 prosecutor stated contained inculpatory evidence [RT 11:2752-
12 2753], prevented appellant from testifying at either phase of
13 the trial without the threat of the statement being used against
14 him as impeachment and/or rebuttal evidence. Substantial
15 evidence supported the defense motion to suppress defendant’s
16 statement on the grounds that (1) the statement was made during
17 custodial interrogation and was not preceded by an effective
18 waiver of Miranda rights, (2) appellant’s mental state at the
19 time the statement was given, which may have been affected by
20 intoxication, sleep deprivation, and diminished mental capacity,
21 rendered him incapable of waiving his Miranda rights in a
22 voluntary, knowing, and intelligent manner, and/or (3) the
23 statement was involuntary and unreliable because it was coerced
24 by police conduct. Although only the first ground identified
25 above was urged as a basis for the motion to suppress [CT 2:367-
26 369], there is a potential issue on appeal whether appellant was
27 denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of
28 / / /

1 counsel where defense counsel failed to assert all meritorious
2 bases for suppression of the statement.
3 V.
4 APPELLANT REQUESTS PERMISSION TO PREPARE A SETTLED STATEMENT TO
5 SETTLE AMBIGUITIES IN THE REPORTED ORAL PROCEEDINGS AND TO
6 SETTLE UNREPORTED ORAL PROCEEDINGS
7 A. INTRODUCTION
8 Appellant makes verified application for permission to
9 prepare a settled statement to ensure a complete and accurate
10 record on appeal. (Rules 7, 36(b); Lathrop Decl., pp. 2, 50, ¶¶
11 2, 9-10.)
12 A capital defendant has a right to a reporter's transcript
13 of all proceedings:
14 In any case in which a death sentence may be
15 imposed, all proceedings conducted in the
16 municipal and superior courts, including all
17 conferences and proceedings, whether in open
18 court, in conference in the courtroom, or in
19 chambers, shall be conducted on the record
20 with a court reporter present. The court
21 reporter shall prepare and certify a daily
22 transcript of all proceedings commencing
23 with the preliminary hearing. Proceedings
24 prior to the preliminary hearing shall be
25 reported but need not be transcribed until
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /

1 the municipal or superior court receives
2 notice .... [§ 190.9, subd. (a)(1).]8
3 As part of the preparation of the record in a criminal
4 appeal, appellant may apply to the trial court for settlement of
5 a statement of any part of the “oral proceedings” of which a
6 transcript “cannot be obtained for any reason.” (Rule 36(b);
7 People v. Gzikowski (1982) 32 Cal.3d 580.) An “oral proceeding”
8 subject to settlement is an “unreported matter, the contents of
9 which may be useful on appeal” (Id. at p. 585, fn. 2), and
10 includes missing documents and other matters. (See People v.
11 Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1331-1332 [defendant’s absence
12 from an in-camera hearing]; People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th
13 119, 148-149 [fact that defendant was seen by trial counsel to
14 be sitting erect with eyes closed on various occasions during
15 the trial, and judge’s lack of independent recollection of such
16 incidents other than those brought to his attention by counsel –
17 relevant to issue of over-medication of defendant with
18 psychotropic drugs during trial]; People v. Osband (1996) 13
19
8
In People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, the
20 California Supreme Court noted its “disapproval of unreported
conferences on matters of substantial controversy in capital
21 cases,” and directed that proceedings in capital cases be
conducted on the record “to remove any conceivable doubt as to
22 what took place and to preclude unnecessary disputes and delays
23 in settling the record for further proceedings.” (Id. at p.
210, fn. 11; People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 700 [trial
24 court should meticulously comply with the section 190.9
requirement that all proceedings in a capital trial be
25 reported]; People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 63 [because
of the “critical role of a proper and complete record in
26 facilitating meaningful appellate review,” the Court “cannot
urge too strongly that trial judges assiduously preserve a
27 detailed account of all proceedings regardless of their
perceived significance, particularly in capital cases, to
28 minimize the need to reconstruct events.”].)

1 Cal.4th 622, 661-662 [missing trial exhibits]; St. George v.
2 Superior Court (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 815 [map used by witness in
3 connection with his testimony but not marked or introduced into
4 evidence].)
5 The rules authorizing settlement, augmentation, and
6 correction of the record are intended to ensure that the record
7 transmitted to the reviewing court preserves and conforms to the
8 proceedings actually undertaken in the trial court. (See, e.g.,
9 People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 922 [settled
10 statement of unreported bench conferences between court and
11 counsel]; People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 401, fn. 6
12 [settled statement of unreported bench discussion between court
13 and juror]; People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098, 1116
14 [settled statement of unreported in-chambers discussion between
15 court and counsel].)
16 An application for “permission to prepare a settled
17 statement” must have some bearing on the appeal; appellant must
18 establish “with some certainty how the [additional] materials he
19 requests may be useful to him on appeal.” (People v. Gaston
20 (1978) 20 Cal.3d 476, 482.) Our California Supreme Court has
21 held, however, that
22 [i]n deciding whether to grant permission to
23 prepare a settled statement, the trial court
24 should accept appellant’s version of its
25 expected contents. [People v. Gzikowski,
26 supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 586, fn. 2.]
27 Appellate counsel has a duty to settle the record where
28 appropriate, and failure to undertake such an effort can result

1 in a waiver of appellate issues. (In re Kathy P. (1979) 25
2 Cal.3d 91, 102.) Where a death judgment has been imposed, as
3 here, counsel’s obligation to reconstruct unrecorded events is
4 all the more evident. (See People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d
5 1098, 1115-1116; People v. Gzikowski, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp.
6 585-586, fn. 2.) Accordingly, appellant requests permission to
7 settle the record as set forth below.
8 B. RECORD SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE
9 The process of settling the record is governed by rules 7
10 and 36(b).
11 Strict compliance with rule 7 assumes
12 particular significance in capital cases by
13 avoiding questions as to the sufficiency of
14 the appellate record [citations] and
15 obviating delays if insufficiencies arise
16 after briefing. [Citation omitted.]
17 Collaterally, proper settlement of the
18 record also preserves a death penalty
19 defendant’s interests with respect to the
20 investigation of potentially meritorious
21 habeas corpus claims. [Marks v. Superior
22 Court, supra, 27 Cal.4th 176, 197.]
23 The process was recently clarified by the California
24 Supreme Court in Marks v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.4th 176:
25 First, the appellant shall “serve and
26 file an application for permission to
27 prepare a settled statement,” which “shall
28 be verified and shall contain a statement of

1 the facts or a certificate of the clerk
2 showing that a reporter’s transcript cannot
3 be obtained.” (Rule 36(b); see also rule
4 4(e).)
5 Second, the judge “shall decide the
6 application ..., and, if the showing is
7 sufficient, shall make an order permitting
8 the preparation of a settled statement” of
9 the oral proceedings in question. (Rule
10 36(b).)
11 Third, upon such an order, the
12 appellant must “serve and file a condensed
13 statement [thereof] in narrative form ....”
14 (Rule 7(b); see rule 36(b).) ....
15 Fourth, the respondent may “serve and
16 file proposed amendments” to the proposed
17 settled statement. (Rule 7(b).)
18 Fifth, the superior court’s clerk
19 “shall set a time ... for settlement of the
20 statement” and “give ... notice to all
21 parties of the time set ....” (Rule 7(d).)
22 Sixth, at this hearing “the judge who
23 tried the case” “shall settle the statement
24 and fix the time within which the appellant
25 shall engross it as settled.” (Rule 7(d).)
26 Seventh, “the appellant shall engross
27 the statement in accordance with the order
28 / / /

1 of the judge,” and “serve and file the
2 engrossed statement.” (Rule 7(d).)
3 Eighth, if the respondent thereafter
4 serves and files timely objections, the
5 judge must determine whether the statement
6 was prepared in accordance with the order;
7 if not, changes are required. (Rule 7(d).)
8 Finally, once the statement is
9 determined to conform to the order, the
10 judge then certifies it. (Rule 7(d).) [Id.
11 at p. 193.]
12 C. REQUEST TO PREPARE A SETTLED STATEMENT WHETHER APPELLANT WAS ABSENT
13 DURING PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ; STATEMENT OF FACTS IN
14 SUPPORT THEREOF
15 Appellant requests permission to prepare a settled
16 statement whether appellant was absent during portions of the
17 trial proceedings held on February 13, 1998 [RT 7-1:1833-1836],
18 February 24, 1998 [RT 12:2901-2909], February 25, 1998 [RT
19 13:3032-3038], and March 6, 1998 [RT 17:3548-3556].
20 Settlement of the record to settle an ambiguity whether
21 appellant was absent during portions of the trial proceedings is
22 a type of unreported matter within the definition of proceedings
23 subject to settlement. (See People v. Bradford, supra, 15
24 Cal.4th at pp. 1331-1332 [defendant’s absence from an in-camera
25 hearing].)
26 The oral proceedings on February 13, 1998, were reported by
27 Yvonne Gallegos. There is an ambiguity whether appellant was
28 absent during the portion of the hearing held outside the
VERIFIED APPLICATION TO CORRECT, COMPLETE,31

1 presence of the jury where counsel and the court discuss
2 stipulations relating to four prospective jurors – Alex Melgun,
3 Charlene Wesley, Mr. West, and Rodney Best. [RT 7-1:1833-1836.]
4 Although the minute order for February 13, 1998, states that the
5 defendant is present in court [CT 2750],9 the reporter’s notes
6 for February 13, 1998, which begin at RT 1833, reflect that
7 appellant is not announced present in court until RT 1837.
9 Yvonne Gallegos. There is an ambiguity whether appellant was
10 absent during the portion of the hearing held outside the
11 presence of the jury where counsel and the court discuss
12 proposed guilt-phase jury instructions. [RT 12:2901-2909.]
13 Although the minute order for February 24, 1998, states that the
14 defendant is present in court [CT 2762], the reporter’s notes
15 for February 24, 1998, which begin at RT 2901, reflect that
18 Yvonne Gallegos. The hearing begins outside the presence of the
19 jury with a discussion of a note received from the jury
20 foreperson during guilt-phase deliberations raising a question
21 about the evidence. Counsel and the court discuss the note,
22 agree upon a response, and then in the presence of the jury the
23 court reads the note and gives a response. The court and Juror
24
25
9
The trial transcript, being more complete and accurate
26 of the two records, generally prevails over an irreconcilable
and inconsistent minute order prepared by the clerk. (People v.
27 Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599 [reporter’s transcript will
generally prevail over the clerk’s transcript when the two are
28 in conflict].)

1 No. 8 then engage in a colloquy concerning the court’s response
2 to the note. [RT 13:3032-3038; CT 11:2761.] The record is
3 ambiguous whether appellant was absent during these proceedings,
4 although it appears that he is absent during the portion of
5 these proceedings held in the presence of the jury. [RT
6 13:3035-3036.] Moreover, although the minute order for February
7 25, 1998, states that “defendant is present in court,” the same
8 minute order states that “defendant is not present ....” [CT
9 2764.]
10 The oral proceedings on March 6, 1998, were reported by
11 Yvonne Gallegos. The ambiguity whether appellant was absent
12 exists during the reading of the verdict of death, polling of
13 the jurors, and dismissal of the jurors. [RT 17:3548-3556.]
14 Although the minute order for March 6, 1998, states that the
15 defendant is present in court [CT 2797], the reporter’s notes
16 for March 6, 1998, which begin at RT 3548, reflect that
18 Except where otherwise indicated, the transcript of the
19 oral proceedings identified above does not reflect whether
20 appellant was personally present during the proceedings.
21 Moreover, it appears that appellant was absent during each of
22 these proceedings because at all other times during the superior
23 court proceedings appellant’s presence or absence was
24 specifically noted for the record. (Lathrop Decl., p. 50, ¶ 9.)
25 Each of the oral proceedings identified above occurred
26 during trial – a critical stage of the criminal proceedings.
27 (See People v. Dagnino (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 981, 986-987.)
28 Appellant’s absence during a critical stage of the criminal

1 proceedings raises a potential appellate issue because it
2 implicates defendant’s “constitutional right to personal
3 presence at all critical stages of his trial ....” (People v.
4 Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 402.)
5 The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that
6 “[o]ne of the most basic of the rights guaranteed by the
7 Confrontation Clause is the accused’s right to be present in the
8 courtroom at every stage of his trial.” (Illinois v. Allen
9 (1970) 397 U.S. 337, 338 [90 S.Ct. 1057; 25 L.Ed.2d 353]; accord
10 United States v. Gagnon (1985) 470 U.S. 522, 526 [105 S.Ct.
11 1482; 84 L.Ed.2d 486]; see also Lewis v. United States (1892)
12 146 U.S. 370, 372 [13 S.Ct. 136; 36 L.Ed. 1011] [“A leading
13 principle that pervades the entire law of criminal procedure is
14 that, after indictment, nothing shall be done in the absence of
15 the prisoner”].)
16 D. REQUEST TO PREPARE A SETTLED STATEMENT OF THE UNREPORTED , IN -COURT
17 DISCUSSIONS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY BETWEEN THE COURT
18 INTERPRETERS AND TESTIFYING WITNESSES ; STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT
19 THEREOF
20 Appellant requests permission to prepare a settled
21 statement of the following unreported, in-court discussions
22 between the court interpreters and testifying witnesses, which
23 were held in the presence of the jury:
24 1. Discussion between prosecution witness Gabriel Hau
25 Cruz and Spanish language interpreter Marisa Mares
26 during the prosecutor’s direct examination of Gabriel
27 Hau Cruz on February 19, 1998; court reporter Yvonne
28 / / /

1 Gallegos present but discussion not reported [RT
2 2638:27-2639:1];
3 2. Discussion between prosecution witness Francisco
4 Piceno and Spanish language interpreter Raymundo Del
5 Rio during the prosecutor’s direct examination of
6 Francisco Piceno on February 23, 1998; court reporter
7 Yvonne Gallegos present but discussion not reported
8 [RT 2727:3-8];
9 3. Discussion between prosecution witness Francisco
10 Piceno and Spanish language interpreter Raymundo Del
11 Rio during the prosecutor’s direct examination of
12 Francisco Piceno on February 23, 1998; court reporter
14 [RT 2731:7-11];
15 4. Discussion between prosecution witness Victor Manuel
16 Can and Spanish language interpreter Manena Fayos
17 during the prosecutor’s direct examination of Victor
18 Manuel Can on March 2, 1998; court reporter Yvonne
20 3123:2-6];
26 3123:17-3124:2];

4 3124:19-26]; and,
5 7. Discussion between prosecution witness Enrique Gabriel
6 Diaz and Spanish language interpreter Bush Schabes
7 preceding the prosecutor’s direct examination of
8 Enrique Gabriel Diaz on March 2, 1998; court reporter
10 [RT 3169:25-26].
11 Rule 984.4(b) requires a complete and accurate
12 interpretation of “everything that is said” during the testimony
13 of a witness. Rule 984.4(b) states:
14 [Complete and accurate interpretation] An
15 interpreter shall use his or her best skills
16 and judgment to interpret accurately without
17 embellishing, omitting, or editing. When
18 interpreting for a party, the interpreter
19 shall interpret everything that is said
20 during the entire proceedings. When
21 interpreting for a witness, the interpreter
22 shall interpret everything that is said
23 during his or her testimony. [Emphasis
24 added.]
25 The discussions identified above are “unreported matter, the
26 contents of which may be useful on appeal” because the
27 discussions (1) relate to material testimony of key prosecution
28 witnesses and (2) suggest potential issues relating to the

1 quality of the translation and the witness’ ability to understand
2 the translation. (Lathrop Decl., p. 51, ¶ 11.)
3 The discussion in paragraph 1 between Gabriel Hau Cruz and
4 Marisa Mares occurred during testimony about the murder of
5 Reynaldo Hau (charged in count 2) and the robbery of Gabriel Hau
6 Cruz (charged in count 5). The discussion in paragraph 2 between
7 Francisco Piceno and Raymundo Del Rio occurred during testimony
8 about a photo identification of appellant. The discussion in
9 paragraph 3 between Francisco Piceno and Raymundo Del Rio
10 occurred during testimony about the identification of Reynaldo
11 Hau’s killer. The discussions in paragraphs 4 and 5 between
12 Victor Manuel Can and Manena Fayos occurred during testimony
13 concerning eyewitness identification. The discussion in
14 paragraph 6 between Victor Manuel Can and Manena Fayos occurred
15 during testimony about contact with police officers. The
16 discussion in paragraph 7 between Enrique Gabriel Diaz and Bush
17 Schabes preceded Mr. Diaz’ testimony implicating appellant in an
18 assault upon him while in county jail [RT 3169-3176]. (Lathrop
19 Decl., p. 51, ¶ 11.)
20 The discussions also suggest potential issues relating to
21 the quality of the translation and the witness’ ability to
22 understand the translation. An incompetent translation affects
23 both the substance of the witness’ testimony and the witness’
24 credibility, and therefore may provide a basis for reversal of
25 the judgment on the ground appellant was denied due process under
26 the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution.
27 (See Perez-Lastor v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th
28 Cir. 2000) 208 F.3d 773, 778 [“It is long-settled that a

1 competent translation is fundamental to a full and fair
2 hearing.”].)10 Moreover, because “[i]t is extremely difficult to
3 pinpoint direct evidence of translation errors without a
4 bilingual transcript of the hearing,” and there is no bilingual
5 transcript of the hearing in this case, settlement of the record
6 of the several unreported, in-court discussions between the court
7 interpreters and testifying witnesses is critical to appellant’s
8 ability to fully develop a claim of incompetent translation.
9 (Ibid.)
10 Nor can it be successfully argued that appellant’s failure
11 to object to the unreported, in-court discussions constituted an
12 implicit waiver his right to a translation of those discussions.
13 (See People v. Aguilar, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 791 [waiver of
14 constitutional right to an interpreter requires explicit
15 “personal waiver” by the defendant]; § 190.9, subd. (a)(1) [where
16 “a death sentence may be imposed, all proceedings ... shall be
17 conducted on the record with a court reporter present”].)
18 E. REQUEST TO PREPARE A SETTLED STATEMENT OF PHYSICAL DEMONSTRATIONS ,
19 INCOMPLETE DESCRIPTIONS , AND NON -VERBAL GESTURES DURING TRIAL THAT
20 ARE NOT DESCRIBED FOR THE RECORD ; STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT
21 THEREOF
22 Appellant requests permission to prepare a settled statement
23 of the following physical demonstrations, incomplete
24 descriptions, and non-verbal gestures that are not described for
25 the record:
26
10
The right to an interpreter to interpret the
27 witnesses’ testimony is guaranteed by the California
Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 14; People v. Aguilar
28 (1984) 35 Cal.3d 785, 790.)

1 1. Prosecutor’s demonstration to the jury during guilt
2 phase opening statement of appellant holding a gun to Francisco
3 Piceno’s head [RT 2483];
4 2. Trial Court’s statement to the jury that defendant had
5 a haircut over the weekend [RT 3124:11-14]; and,
6 3. Non-verbal gestures of trial witnesses Ismael
7 Magallanes [RT 2508-2509, 2512:16-17, 2513-2514, 2530, 2531],
8 John Freitas [RT 2546], Felix David Callejas [RT 2606, 2608,
9 2612, 2613-2614, 2621:22], Gabriel Hau Cruz [RT 2645, 2646,
10 2648:9-10, 2649, 2661:21-28], Joaquin Hau Cruz 2677:17-22,
11 2695:24-25, 2696:1-2, 2697-2698, 2700:4-6], Francisco Piceno [RT
12 2711:23-25, 2716-2717, 2718-2719, 2720:10, 2720:12-24], Victor
13 Can [RT 3112, 3119, 3120:8-10, 3122:8-11], Kevin Burke [RT
14 3164:6-9], and Enrique Diaz [RT 3210:25-27, 3267:7-8].
15 A capital defendant is entitled to an appellate record that
16 accurately reflects what was done and said in the trial court.
17 (See People v. Jones, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 148-149
18 [settlement of defendant’s non-verbal behavior during trial].)
19 The physical demonstrations and non-verbal gestures identified
20 above constitute “unreported matter, the contents of which may be
21 useful on appeal” (see ante, § V.A) because they relate to the
22 identification of appellant, his alibi defense to the charges,
23 and material issues concerning the relative positions of the
24 homicide victims and eyewitnesses, location of injuries to the
25 various victims, and the handling of the firearm(s) used during
26 the commission of the charged offenses. (Lathrop Decl., pp. 51-
27 52, ¶ 12.)
28 / / /

1 VI.
2 APPELLANT REQUESTS AN ORDER SECURING HIS PERSONAL PRESENCE AT ALL
3 RECORD SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO WHETHER APPELLANT WAS
4 ABSENT DURING A PORTION OF THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
5 In the preceding section, appellant requests permission to
6 prepare a settled statement whether appellant was absent during
7 portions of the trial proceedings held on February 13, 24, and
8 25, 1998, and March 6, 1998. (Ante, § V.C.)
9 Appellant requests his personal presence at the record
10 settlement proceedings relating to whether appellant was absent
11 during a portion of the trial proceedings. This request is made
12 on the grounds that (1) appellant’s personal presence will
13 materially contribute to his opportunity to defend himself
14 against the charges because he has personal knowledge whether he
15 was present at the trial proceedings, thereby establishing a
16 right under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment and
17 the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
18 be present at record settlement proceedings related thereto (see
19 United States v. Gagnon, supra, 470 U.S. at p. 526), and (2)
20 appellant’s personal presence is necessary to secure his
21 constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel (U.S.
22 Const., 6th and 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15) because
23 appellate counsel was not present during the trial proceedings,
24 trial defense counsel does not have an independent recollection
25 whether appellant was absent during a portion of the trial
26 proceedings, and appellant has a recollection of the trial
27 proceedings which will materially aid counsel in the competent
28 / / /

1 representation of appellant at record settlement proceedings.
2 (Lathrop Decl., p. 50, ¶ 10.)
3 Due process of law affords every defendant the “right to be
4 present at a proceeding ‘whenever his presence has a relation,
5 reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to
6 defend against the charge.’” (United States v. Gagnon, supra,
7 470 U.S. at p. 526, quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts (1934) 291
8 U.S. 97, 105-106 [54 S.Ct. 330; 78 L.Ed. 674].)
9 In Kentucky v. Stincer (1987) 482 U.S. 730, 107 S.Ct. 2658,
10 96 L.Ed.2d 631, the Supreme Court explained that although
11 this privilege of presence is not guaranteed
12 “when presence would be useless, or the
13 benefit but a shadow,” due process clearly
14 requires that a defendant be allowed to be
15 present “to the extent that a fair and just
16 hearing would be thwarted by his absence.”
17 Thus, a defendant is guaranteed the right to
18 be present at any stage of the criminal
19 proceeding that is critical to its outcome if
20 his presence would contribute to the fairness
21 of the procedure.
22 (Id. at p. 745, quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, supra, 291 U.S.
23 at pp. 106-107; see also Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S.
24 806, 819, fn.15 [95 S.Ct. 2525; 45 L.Ed.2d 562] [“an accused has
25 a right to be present at all stages of the trial where his
26 absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings”].)
27 Pursuant to the constitutional principles enumerated above,
28 appellant has a right to be present at the post-conviction record

1 settlement proceedings because the proceedings relate to a matter
2 within appellant’s personal knowledge and his presence will
3 materially contribute to his defense against the charges.
4 In Terry v. Cross (E.D. Va. 2000) 112 F.Supp.2d 543, for
5 example, on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in connection
6 with a post-conviction record correction hearing following
7 defendant’s conviction for statutory rape, the district court
8 held that the state violated petitioner’s due process right to be
9 present during post-sentence record correction proceedings by
10 holding a hearing in those proceedings in his absence. (Id. at
11 pp. 549-550.) Appellate counsel sought correction of the trial
12 transcript on the grounds that the victim’s birth date as it
13 appeared in the original transcript supported a motion to vacate
14 on actual innocence grounds. At the record correction hearing
15 trial counsel had no independent recollection of the victim’s
16 testimony, but stated that his trial notes indicated that the
17 victim testified to an earlier birth date, which supported the
18 statutory rape charge. Appellate counsel was not present at
19 trial and so was in no position to contradict trial counsel.
20 Petitioner asked to be present at the hearing and claimed to have
21 independent recollection of the victim testifying to the same
22 birth date that appeared in the transcript. (Id. at pp. 548-
23 549.) The district court held petitioner had a constitutional
24 right to be present at the post-sentencing hearing to correct the
25 trial transcript, stating:
26 Terry’s Due Process right to be present
27 during essential proceedings was violated
28 when a hearing to correct the trial

1 transcript was held in his absence and the
2 testimony at that hearing directly conflicted
3 with Terry’s independent recollection of what
4 was said at trial. [Id. at pp. 549-550.]
5 Finally, it is not unusual in a capital case for a defendant
6 to be personally present during post-conviction record settlement
7 proceedings relating to a matter within the defendant’s personal
8 knowledge. (See People v. Phillips (2000) 22 Cal.4th 226, 240-
9 241 [death penalty case: defendant personally present and
10 testified at post-conviction hearing to settle the record whether
11 an untranscribed hearing occurred at the time of trial concerning
12 a funding request filed by defendant].)
13 Accordingly, appellant respectfully requests an order
14 securing his personal presence at all record settlement
15 proceedings relating to whether appellant was absent during a
16 portion of the trial proceedings.
17 VII.
18 REQUEST FOR COPIES OF CERTAIN REPRODUCIBLE EXHIBITS TO EXPEDITE
19 THE REVIEW OF THE RECORD, FACILITATE REFERENCE TO THE RECORD, AND
20 ELIMINATE THE COST OF COUNSEL HAVING TO TRAVEL TO THE TRIAL COURT
21 MERELY TO EXAMINE THE EXHIBITS
22 The record on appeal includes “all exhibits admitted in
23 evidence, refused, or lodged.” (Rule 5(a)(5); see also Rules 18,
24 33(a)(3), 33(b)(3), 39.51(a)(1); People v. Osband (1996) 13
25 Cal.4th 622, 663). Rule 33 provides only for the transmission of
26 exhibits as originals to the reviewing court and not for copies
27 for counsel, except for transcripts of electronic sound or
28 sound-and-video recording provided to the jury or tendered to the

1 court. (Rule 33(1)(k).) However, some exhibits may fall within
2 the definition of the “entire record” in a capital appeal under
3 rule 39.51, which includes “all documents filed or lodged in the
4 municipal and superior court files in the case,” as well as
5 unspecified “additional matter.” (Rule 39.51(a)(1), (c).)
6 Appellant requests that the court order that copies of the
7 following exhibits be provided to appellant:
8 EXHIBIT NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION

9 1. People’s Exh. 1 8/8/95 Photo Identification Card
10 (Municipal Court)
11 2. People’s Exh. 2 8/8/95 Photo Identification Card
13 3. People’s Exh. 3 8/8/95 Authorization to Search
4. People’s Exh. 6 8/8/95 Photo Display Folder
15
(Municipal Court)
16
5. People’s Exh. 7 8/8/95 Photo Identification Report
17
(Municipal Court)
18
6. People’s Exh. 8 8/8/95 Photo Identification Report
19
(Municipal Court)
20
7. People’s Exh. 4 2/23/98 Photo Display Folder
21
(Superior Court)
22 8. People’s Exh. 5 2/23/98 Posterboard containing three
23 (Superior Court) photographs of defendant,
24 marked A, B, and C.
25 9. People’s Exh. 7 unknown Booking photograph
26 (Superior Court)
27 10. People’s Exh. 8 unknown Photograph of defendant’s
28 (Superior Court) tattoo (back of head)

2 (Superior Court) tattoo (below lip)
4 (Superior Court) tattoo (left ear)
6 (Superior Court) tattoo (below lip, close-up)
8 (Superior Court) tattoo (right leg)

15. People’s Exh. 15 unknown Posterboard containing three
9
(Superior Court) photographs of defendant,
10
marked A, B, and C.
11
16. People’s Exh. 17 2/23/98 Photographic Identification
12
(Superior Court) General Guidelines
13
17. People’s Exh. 23 2/23/98 One-page document entitled
14
(Superior Court) Continuation Sheet
15
The few selected exhibits identified above relate to
16
potential appellate issues, including both the out-of-court and
17
in-court identifications of defendant, authorization to search
18
defendant’s residence, and presentation of gang evidence.
19
(Lathrop Decl., p. 52, ¶ 13.)
20
Appellant requests, therefore, that the court order the
21
custodian of the exhibits to release the exhibits identified
22
above to a copy service for reproduction at court expense and
23
that the copies be forwarded to appellant’s counsel. (See People
24
v. Watson, Cal. Supreme Court No. S024471, order filed May 14,
25
1997, attached hereto at page 239 [superior court directed “to
26
allow appellant’s counsel to cause reproductions of the items in
27
/ / /
28

1 question to be made on such terms and conditions as the superior
2 court deems reasonable”].)
3 VIII.
4 REQUEST THAT THE “ENTIRE RECORD” ON APPEAL INCLUDE ALL DOCUMENTS
5 LODGED AND/OR FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INSTANT APPLICATION TO
6 CORRECT, COMPLETE, AND SETTLE THE RECORD ON APPEAL, INCLUDING THE
7 REPORTER’S NOTES OF ALL ORAL PROCEEDINGS RELATING THERETO
8 Appellant requests that all pleadings filed during these
9 record completion proceedings be made part of the record on
10 appeal and included as additional record in a supplemental
11 clerk’s transcript. (Rule 39.51(a)(1).)
12 In addition, appellant requests that a reporter’s transcript
13 of any hearings in these proceedings be prepared and included in
14 the record on appeal. (Rule 39.51(a)(2).)
15 IX.
16 REQUEST FOR ORDER THAT THE COMPLETED RECORD NOT BE CERTIFIED
17 UNTIL 20 DAYS AFTER DELIVERY OF ALL REQUESTED MATERIAL TO
18 APPELLATE COUNSEL
19 Appellate counsel needs time to review for completeness
20 additional records prepared and furnished during the
21 pre-certification record completion process. (See, e.g., People
22 v. Alfaro, Cal. Supreme Court No. S027730, letter to trial court
23 clerk, May 9, 1997, attached hereto at pages 240-241.)
24 In order to protect against the record being certified while
25 appellate counsel is still preparing corrections to additional
26 records, appellant requests that the trial court order that the
27 completed record not be certified until 20 days has elapsed after
28 delivery of all the requested material to appellant’s counsel.

1 DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. LATHROP
2 I, STEPHEN M. LATHROP, declare:
3 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the
4 State of California and I am admitted to practice before this
5 Court. I am appointed appellate counsel for defendant and
6 appellant Gerardo Romero. I have personal knowledge of the facts
7 herein and if called as a witness could and would testify
8 competently thereto.
9 2. The matters stated in the VERIFIED APPLICATION OF
10 APPELLANT GERARDO ROMERO TO CORRECT, COMPLETE, AND SETTLE THE
11 RECORD ON APPEAL are true of my own knowledge, except as to those
12 matters which are therein stated on information and belief, which
13 I believe to be true.
14 3. On April 12, 2002, I was appointed by the California
15 Supreme Court to represent appellant Gerardo Romero for the
16 direct appeal in the above automatic appeal.
17 4. The record on appeal was delivered to me on April 18,
18 2002. The reporter’s transcript is comprised of eighteen volumes
19 consisting of 1,932 pages. The clerk’s transcript is comprised
20 of (1) two volumes of section 987.9 documents filed under seal
21 consisting of 431 pages, (2) eleven volumes consisting of 2,873
22 pages, and (3) one volume entitled “Supplemental Two” consisting
23 of 6 pages.
24 5. On July 3, 2002, the trial court denied appellant’s
25 timely application, filed June 28, 2002, for a 90-day extension
26 of time to file appellant’s motion to correct, augment and/or
27 settle the record on appeal, but granted appellant a 60-day
28 extension to and including September 13, 2002, to file the

1 request for corrections or additions to the record. On September
2 12, 2002, I was informed the trial court’s clerk that the trial
3 court granted appellant’s timely application, filed September 12,
4 2002, for an additional extension of time of 5 court days, to and
5 including September 20, 2002, to file appellant’s motion to
6 correct, augment and/or settle the record on appeal.
7 6. I have reviewed the reporter’s and clerk’s transcript.
8 I have reviewed the superior court file and trial exhibits. I
9 have reviewed appellant’s trial counsels’ files and I have spoken
10 with defense counsel Mark Zavidow and trial defense counsel Ray
11 Clark. I have made a diligent search for copies of all documents
12 requested in this application and have attached hereto as
13 exhibits those requested documents that are in my possession.
14 7. On August 14, 2002, while reviewing the superior court
15 file, I spoke with Clerk Eva (tel. 213-974-5932/31), who
16 identified herself as the trial clerk responsible for maintaining
17 the Romero superior court file. I requested that clerk Eva
18 provide me with a copy of the following documents identified in
19 section III.B of appellant’s memorandum of points and
20 authorities: (1) a copy of the transcripts of the sealed
21 proceedings identified in item numbers 2 and 6, (2) a copy of the
22 contents of the envelope identified in item number 16, and (3)
23 and a copy of the written jury instructions identified in item
24 number 18. Clerk Eva told me that she could not provide the
25 requested transcripts and/or documents absent a court order
26 directing that counsel be provided copies, except for the written
27 jury instructions which she could not immediately locate in the
28 clerk’s file.

1 8. I have reviewed the reporter’s and clerk’s transcript.
2 The material identified in item numbers 5 and 8 through 15,
3 inclusive, in section III.B of appellant’s memorandum of points
4 and authorities, was considered by the trial court at various
5 stages of the proceedings and relied upon by either the
6 prosecution or defense or both, and appears to have been either
7 lodged or filed in the trial court.
8 9. The reporter’s notes of the oral proceedings on February
9 13, 1998 [RT 7-1:1833-1836], February 24, 1998 [RT 12:2901-2909],
10 February 25, 1998 [RT 13:3032-3038], and March 6, 1998 [RT
11 17:3548-3556] do not reflect whether appellant was personally
12 present during the proceedings. It appears that appellant was
13 absent during each of these proceedings because at all other
14 times during the trial proceedings appellant’s presence or
15 absence was specifically noted for the record.
16 10. Appellant specifically requests that he be personally
17 present during all record settlement proceedings relating to
18 whether appellant was absent during a portion of the trial
19 proceedings held on February 13, 24, and 25, 1998, and March 6,
20 1998. (See ante, § VI.C.) Appellant’s personal presence will
21 materially contribute to his opportunity to defend himself, and
22 it will aid appellate counsel in the competent representation of
23 him, because appellant was present at the trial and has a
24 recollection of whether he was present and/or absent during the
25 trial proceedings. I was not present during the trial
26 proceedings, and trial defense counsel Ray Clark has informed me
27 that he does not have an independent recollection whether
28 appellant was absent during a portion of the trial proceedings.

1 11. The several in-court discussions between the court
2 interpreters and testifying witnesses (ante, § V.D.) are
3 unreported matter that may be helpful to appellant on appeal
4 because the discussions (1) relate to material testimony of key
5 prosecution witnesses and (2) suggest potential issues relating
6 to the quality of the translation and the witness’ ability to
7 understand the translation. The discussion identified in
8 paragraph 1 (ante, § V.D) between Gabriel Hau Cruz and Marisa
9 Mares occurred during testimony about the murder of Reynaldo Hau
10 (charged in count 2) and the robbery of Gabriel Hau Cruz (charged
11 in count 5). The discussion identified in paragraph 2 (ante, §
12 V.D) between Francisco Piceno and Raymundo Del Rio occurred
13 during testimony about a photo identification of appellant. The
14 discussion identified in paragraph 3 (ante, § V.D) between
15 Francisco Piceno and Raymundo Del Rio occurred during testimony
16 about the identification of Reynaldo Hau’s killer. The
17 discussions identified in paragraphs 4 and 5 (ante, § V.D)
18 between Victor Manuel Can and Manena Fayos occurred during
19 testimony concerning eyewitness identification. The discussion
20 identified in paragraph 6 (ante, § V.D) between Victor Manuel Can
21 and Manena Fayos occurred during testimony about contact with
22 police officers. The discussion identified in paragraph 7 (ante,
23 § V.D) between Enrique Diaz and Bush Schabes preceded Mr. Diaz’
24 testimony implicating appellant in an assault upon him while in
25 county jail.
26 12. The physical demonstrations, incomplete descriptions,
27 and non-verbal gestures that are not described for the record may
28 be useful on appeal because they relate to the identification of

000053
000054
000055
000056
000057
000058
000059
000060
000061
000062
000063
000064
000065
000066
000067
000068
000069
000070
000071
000072
000073
000074
000075
000076
000077
000078
000079
000080
000081
000082
000083
000084
000085
000086
000087
000088
000089
000090
000091
000092
000093
000094
000095
000096
000097
000098
000099
000100
000101
000102
000103
000104
000105
000106
000107
000108
000109
000110
000111
000112
000113
000114
000115
000116
000117
000118
000119
000120
000121
000122
000123
000124
000125
000126
000127
000128
000129
000130
000131
000132
000133
000134
000135
000136
000137
000138
000139
000140
000141
000142
000143
000144
000145
000146
000147
000148
000149
000150
000151
000152
000153
000154
000155
000156
000157
000158
000159
000160
000161
000162
000163
000164
000165
000166
000167
000168
000169
000170
000171
000172
000173
000174
000175
000176
000177
000178
000179
000180
000181
000182
000183
000184
000185
000186
000187
000188
000189
000190
000191
000192
000193
000194
000195
000196
000197
000198
000199
000200
000201
000202
000203
000204
000205
000206
000207
000208
000209
000210
000211
000212
000213
000214
000215
000216
000217
000218
000219
000220
000221
000222
000223
000224
000225
000226
000227
000228
000229
000230
000231
000232
000233
000234
000235
000236
000237
000238
000239
000240
000241

Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Los Angeles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Superior Court of The State of California For The County of Los Angeles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Stephen M. Lathrop (S.B.

4 Attorney for Defendant/Appellant

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

1 SETTLE THE RECORD ON APPEAL

8 II. APPELLANT REQUESTS CORRECTION OF THE REPORTER’S AND

14 A. THE “ENTIRE RECORD ” IN A CAPITAL APPEAL . . . . . . . . 14

15 B. OMITTED “ENTIRE RECORD ” MATERIAL . . . . . . . . . . . 17

16 IV. APPELLANT REQUESTS AUGMENTATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL

18 V. APPELLANT REQUESTS PERMISSION TO PREPARE A SETTLED

21 B. RECORD SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

22 C. REQUEST TO PREPARE A SETTLED STATEMENT WHETHER APPELLANT

24 D. REQUEST TO PREPARE A SETTLED STATEMENT OF THE

VERIFIED APPLICATION TO CORRECT, COMPLETE, -i-

10 IX. REQUEST FOR ORDER THAT THE COMPLETED RECORD NOT BE

13 DECLARATION OF STEPHEN M. LATHROP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

15 Juror Questionnaire, Juror No. 7835 . . . . . . . . . . . 53

16 Juror Questionnaire, Juror No. 6991 . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

17 Reporter’s Transcript, August 2, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . 103

18 Subpena Duces Tecum and Application for

22 People v. Alfaro, Cal. Supreme Court No. S027730,

3 Defendant and appellant Gerardo Romero respectfully submits

4 this verified application to correct, complete, and settle the

5 record on appeal in connection with the automatic appeal from a

6 judgment and sentence of death imposed by this court on May 22,

7 1998. [CT 11:2812.]1

8 On April 12, 2002, the California Supreme Court appointed

9 Stephen M. Lathrop as counsel for appellant in the above

10 automatic appeal. (Declaration of Stephen M. Lathrop (“Lathrop

11 Decl.”), p. 48, ¶ 3.)

12 The record on appeal was delivered to appellate counsel on

13 April 18, 2002. The reporter’s transcript is comprised of

14 eighteen volumes consisting of 1,932 pages. The clerk’s

15 transcript is comprised of (1) two volumes of section 987.9

16 documents filed under seal consisting of 431 pages, (2) eleven

17 volumes consisting of 2,873 pages, and (3) one volume entitled

18 “Supplemental Two” consisting of 6 pages. (Lathrop Decl., p. 48,

20 On July 3, 2002, this Court denied appellant’s timely

21 application, filed June 28, 2002, for a 90-day extension of time

22 to file appellant’s motion to correct, augment and/or settle the

23 record on appeal, but granted appellant a 60-day extension to

24 and including September 13, 2002, to file the request for

25 corrections or additions to the record. (Lathrop Decl., pp. 48-

1 SETTLE THE RECORD ON APPEAL

2 timely application, filed September 12, 2002, for an additional

3 extension of time of 5 court days, to and including September

4 20, 2002, to file appellant’s motion to correct, augment and/or

5 settle the record on appeal. (Lathrop Decl., p. 49, ¶ 5.)

6 LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL BASES FOR RECORD COMPLETION

7 A complete and accurate record is an essential component of

8 appellate review and due process and a requirement for the

9 effective assistance of appellate counsel. (People v. Barton

10 (1978) 21 Cal.3d 513.) Former Justice Goldberg explained that

11 the most basic and fundamental tool of an

12 appellate advocate’s profession is the

13 complete transcript, through which his

14 trained fingers may leaf and his trained

15 eyes may roam in search of an error, a lead

16 to an error, or even a basis upon which to

17 urge a change in the established law.

18 Anything short of a complete transcript is

19 incompatible with effective appellate

20 advocacy. [Hardy v. United States (1964)