PEOPLE v. HERRERA Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>PEOPLE v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >PEOPLE v.</b><b > HERRERA</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/1/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >IN<br /> THE SUPREME COURT OF </b><b >CALIFORNIA</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>THE PEOPLE, )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent, )<br /> <br/> ) S171895<br /> <br/> v. )<br /> <br/> ) Ct.App. 4/3 G039028<br /> <br/>HONORIO MORENO HERRERA, )<br /> <br/> ) Orange County<br /> <br/> Defendant and Appellant. ) Super.<br /> Ct. No. 05CF3817<br /> <br/>__________________________________ )<u></u><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM <br /> PART I….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Although acknowledging that the trial court had no<br /> power to compel the witness's appearance at trial (<i >Sandoval</i>, <i >supra</i>, 87<br /> Cal.App.4th at p. 1434), <i >Sandoval</i><br /> found it highly significant that the United States and Mexico<br /> had a treaty, which became effective in 1991, providing for cooperation in the<br /> prosecution of crimes and mutual assistance in obtaining witness<br /> testimony. (<i<br /> >Sandoval</i>, at pp. 1439-1440.) Specifically, the treaty outlined several<br /> cooperative methods by which a Mexican resident's testimony could be obtained,<br /> either in California or in Mexico. (<i >Id</i>. at p. 1439.)<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup> This<br /> development sufficiently distinguished the situation in <i >Sandoval</i> from that which existed in 1972 when <i<br /> >Mancusi</i> observed that the United States had <i >not</i> yet<br /> made agreements with foreign countries similar to the interstate agreements<br /> found in <i >Barber</i>. (<i >Sandoval</i>, <i >supra</i>, 87<br /> Cal.App.4th at p. 1440.) Because<br /> the treaty with Mexico represented such an agreement, the prosecution's failure<br /> to pursue any of the cooperative methods outlined in the treaty was fatal to<br /> its showing of good faith: <br /> â€