Trial Counsel failed to perform a reasonable and adequate investigation into Quijada's criminal background. Had Trial Counsel done so, he would have discovered Quijada s prior convictions and would have been able to impeach her testimony and cast significant doubt on her credibility. Cal. Const., art. I. § 28, subdivision (I) ("Any prior felony conviction of any person in any criminal proceeding. . . shall subsequently be used without limitation for purposes of impeachment. . . ."); see also People v. Forster, 29 Cal. App. 4th 1746, 1757 (1994) (multiple convictions of driving under the influence involved moral turpitude because it was a "recidivist type crime involving an extremely dangerous activity"). 212.

Robert Acosta Spider (3CT 659, 672.) 133 Codefendant Grajeda sought to exclude the note on the groundsthat: (1) it was hearsay and there was no applicable exception to the hearsay rule; (2) it should be excluded undersection 352; and (3) it should be excluded ‘under the Truth-in-Evidence provision of California Constitution articleI, section 28. GCT 653-658.) The prosecution filed a memo of law regarding the admissibility of Acosta’s note. (3CT 663-672.)

(1 8 RT 3276.) Nevertheless, the prosecution still sought to and was permitted to introduce People's 23,24,25 and 28 to "prove" those uncontradicted facts. Similarly, Dr. Lovell also testified that the victim had received a blow to the back of the head before her death. (12 RT 2 170.)

California, of course, has made other choices. 7/ In a footnote, the court in Clark noted that "diminished capacity" in California had the meaning of "diminished responsibility": "Though the term "diminished capacity" has been given different meanings [cita- tion], California, a jurisdiction with which the concept has traditionally been associated, understood it to be simply a ‘"showing that the defenda- nt’s mental capacity was reduced by mental illness, mental defect or intoxication,"’ People v. Berry, 18 Cal.3d 509, 517, 134 Cal. Rptr. 415, 556 P.2d 777, 781 (1976) (quoting People v. Castillo, 70 Cal.2d 264, 270, 74 Cal. Rptr. 385, 449 P.2d 449, 452 (1969); emphasis deleted), abrogated by Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§ 25(a), 28(a)-(b), 29 (West 1999 and Supp. 2006)." Clark, supra, 548 U.S. at 772 fn. 41. 22 D.

e c eee eeeeeecceeeeeeereeeeeseees 3 California Jury Instructions CALIJIC 2.21.2 oocce ceee ence eee cee eee enna senna eenene een aes 241 CALIJIC 8.25 ooocectee ee ee etee ee eee eee nee eeenene ee eaere a eee tas 184 CALIJIC 8.88 2.0.ccece eee eeee eee ene e nee enannees 247, 250, 253 California Rules of Court TUle 8.346 . 0... cece cece ccc e ccc ccee ccc ccceeceeecereneccceeneeceeuseeeuneseuecs 238 TUle 8.619 oo...e ccc eee cece cece ects cee eueseeceeeeeeeeuenseuteneseeues 240 California Rules of Professional Conduct 70ColaO. 173 California Constitution Article 1 SCCUION 7 oo... cceece ec eeee cece cee ee eee eee ee ee eee e eee eeeeee eae e ees passim SECTION 15... eee ee ccee cece eee e ence eset eee tenses erases eaee eas passim SECTION 16 0... cece ccc eee eee e cece e eee neee nace nena ee enaeeeeeee ees passim SECTION 17 00... eee e ee ceee eee e eee e eee cere eae e eee eeenaeee eae eese passim SECTION 24 0... eee ceee cece eee e eee ceee tees cee e ee naeee eee ees passim SECTION 28 00... eee ceeecee cece sete eee eee e ence eee e eee eeaeneeee nee ees 124 SECHION 29 oo... eee c ccc ese eee eeeeee eee nese eee eeeeeeenateeenaeees passim SECTION 31elec cece cee ceee eect etee eee e eee eeae eee sean ees passim United States Constitution Amendments FIVE oo cc ccccc ccc cese eee cece eee nents nae e saeco eeaceenaenseeneeenes passim SIX Lecce cece cce eee ceneee ence ene ee ee eee eee e eee e ee ena ee etna ees passim Eight 22... ..ccc cee ceee eee e sees eee eeeee ee eeeeene eee eeae enna sence passim FOUrTCEN 20... eee ceee eee e ene eee ceeee ee eeeeee stern ease ena e ees passim People v. Woodruff, S115378 XVili Appellant’s Opening Brief Secondary Sources Bassoetal., Practice Effects on the WAIS-III Across 3- and 6-Month Intervals (2002) 16 Clinical Neuropsychologist 57 .... 195 fn. Boskey, The Right to Counsel in Appellate Proceedings (1961) AS Minn. L. Rev. 783 2.0... ccc ec cece eee caeeeeeeeeeeaeseessenenes 238 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11™