On appeal Jeff was represented by Tonja R. Torres.
I don't have copies of the briefs that Torres filed.
Jeff says there is more than 1 because when he received a copy of the first brief, he felt she missed an argument concerning the admission of the LAPD detective being covered by Callahan.
After he wrote and told her so, she agreed and filed an amended brief.
I say she is ineffective for two reasons.
First, she conceeds the prior was properly admitted instead of arguing that it should have been excluded.
Second, once Jeff pointed out that Callahan applied to the LAPD Detective also, she filed an additional brief.
But in doing so, she misquoted Callahan in a way that seriously weakened her argument.
Callahan states that a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of good behavior under similar circumstances."
Which is exactly what Jeff was trying to do.
Torres misqouted Callahan.
Instead of "...evidence of good behavior under similar circumstances."
She wrote "...evidence of good behavior under similar circumstances to those surrounding the charged sexual offense."
Which was not what he was trying to do.
Now, in theory, it shouldn't have made a difference.
There is no way that the Court of Appeals is going to rely on an attorneys misrepresentation of the law in their ruling, right?
They will either be very familiar with the law or they would look it up for themselves, right?
Wrong.
If you are familiar with People v. Callahan, you will have to read it to believe it.
