At Mr. Woodruff’s trial, the prosecutor urged the jurors to adopt such an automatic death-penalty schemein their deliberations and to vote for death based on the evidence they hadheard in the guilt phase alone. By doing so, and by appealingto religious intolerance, the prosecutor denied Mr. Woodruff a fair penalty trial, due process of law and the heightened reliability required in death-penalty determinations underthe Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendmentsto the United States Constitution and Article 1, sections 7, 15, 17, 24 and 29 of the California Constitution. This Court has held that generally “a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconductunless in a timely fashion — and on the same ground — the defendant madean assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety.”

See Stats. 1993, c. 611, §§ 4, 4.5, 6. In 1981, the Legislature, as part of a general rejection of the diminished capacity defense, eliminated two mental state defenses previously available in first- degree murder cases. 1981 Cal. Stat. 404, §§ 2, 7 (codified as amended at Cal. Pen. Code §§ 22, 189).

In any event, without more, the “discussions” are not themselves a bribe because they are not an offer of “something of value or advantage.” See Cal. Pen. Code §§ 7(6), 67. Simply stated, because SAP offered employment to Culver only after the County had blessed the potential employment, that offer cannot possibly be a bribe.

The action before this Court also names a third defendant, County official Ernest Culver, who participated in the bribery scheme by falsely approving Deloitte's deficient work, and causing the County to enter into new contracts with Deloitte and the SAP Defendants, in exchange for potential employment offers and lavish dinners. Indeed, the allegations in this action include violations of California's anti-corruption statute (Government Code § 1090) and bribery statute (California Penal Code § 7). Second, Deloitte's unsubstantiated assertion that the claims at issue in this action are within the scope of the ISA's Reference Clause is also not true.

eneeecseesensseeasavenensenenacneearsnsaceasenteresessets 121 SLD Dicceeeeeeccceeseescseseeseseeseeneseensesneneeasansnserssesseneesensneeesersasensereaceseeseys 183, 189 SLLSD eceeceecececserssesseseseeseessenennssnssesnesstsnsnesssseseesensesenscasnnenneaseneaceseeensntsgts 182 § L138 .ceecceccsscesesseceeessssssesncseseesesnssessennsnseserseneaseseneneesenensaneneereeasestenss 148, 149 § 1202.4. cesecsecsecessesessessesneaesnesneensecesersansatsnesseseensessnecesenesnnsereasencesseesessesseesey 4 § 1239. ceetecseetetereteteeees ceseesuessessecsseasecsecnecscesecncoesscescarecsucansqnecnenasenssenecan 4 § 1Q59 ee eeceeeeteeseseeseesesesenreneees vbaeaeeavecensecssceseeeaessesseeeteeeeeetensseseenees 152, 166 © § 1385 .cececsecsssessecessecsssesesscseeseansenssneeseneasessassnssesveaesessesagasensenencersaessassesnsessnnss 3 § 12022.5..ccccccsescessessrssessescsseesesnseneaceeneerenssssseneseasanensesenraceseeacserensesgsss 1, 2,3 XXVill CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Cal. Const. ALT. TL, § 7 eeceesecssescceseeceseessecsceeceecseeseeecersesseesecsaceeeseessenseneeseeseesessesasneseeenas 177 AIT. 1, 8 1S ee ecececesseescesecesececcseeseeaceaeessesseceeseneceesssesesneessaesessesenaeens 81,177 AIT. 1, § 28 voce cccccsesecssccsecsecsesseeessesteeseeeseeseeevsessnecsesteseesensseesseeseseesenseegs 134 ALt.L, § BOee cececcceeeseseeneenecsevsetecseeeeneceneereeeseessesseeseseseseeeseesieeneesanseeneeens 104 U.S. Const. AMeNd, V oie. .eecccccessccessecessseeseneesaeccseeeseneereneesseacesseaessneeeenaeeaseessenesseeseeanees 129 Amend, Vu.eecccecscseeeceneeseeeeareeeecseeseneessecesaeeeaesesessssessesessseesseesanessnesepassim Amend. VII... cccccseccscssscesesecseceecseeseserseeseeeenesseetsenscnnessarens 129, 166, 177 Amend. XIV ooo. .ccececeeceecsessececeseesevsesseesaesereeesesesssnseteeseneaes 81, 129, 166, 177 OTHER AUTHORITIES 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 394, p. 444...eens82 CALJIC NO. 2.01] ..cccccccsccesscsscesecceseesecseesssceseeesseceneeseeeecesesn

Parallel citations are included in the text for the decisions of otherjurisdictions. 48 Cal.Const., art I, sections 7, 15 and 17.) For the reasons discussed below, this Court must reverse appellant’s conviction offirst-degree murder, and overturn his sentence.

(See 18 RT 3216,3336,3340,3349; 3384,20 RT 3630-3 1,23 RT 4574; 2 SCT2 299-301.) -. Appellant also specifically objected to People's 5, 6, and 7, which also showed the victim lying in a pool of blood in the ditch where she was found. (1 1 RT 2 155-2 156.)