PEOPLE v. RICHARD LACY LETNER and CHRISTOPHER ALLAN TOBIN Part IV
<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<br /> >PEOPLE v.<br /> RICHARD LACY LETNER and </b><br /> <br/><b >CHRISTOPHER ALLAN TOBIN</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/29/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >IN THE SUPREME COURT OF </b><b<br /> >CALIFORNIA</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>THE PEOPLE, )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> Plaintiff<br /> and Respondent, )<br /> <br/> ) S015384<br /> <br/> v. )<br /> <br/> ) <br /> <br/>RICHARD LACY LETNER and )<br /> <br/>CHRISTOPHER<br /> ALLAN TOBIN, )<br /> <br/> ) Tulare<br /> County<br /> <br/> Defendants<br /> and Appellants. ) Super.<br /> Ct. No. 26592<br /> <br/>__________________________________ )<u></u><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >Story continued from part III…..</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/>Despite Letner's speculation to<br /> the contrary, there is no evidence in the record that any of the prospective<br /> jurors were able to see his leg brace. <br /> Indeed, the trial court, during record settlement proceedings, found<br /> that the leg brace was not visible to the prospective jurors. In addition, Letner<br /> was restrained on the day prior to that on which the jury was empanelled, and<br /> it is unclear how many, if any, of the jurors who ultimately served on the jury<br /> would have seen the brace that day.<br /> <br/> Letner contends, however, that under the high court's<br /> decision in <i >Deck v. Missouri</i> (2005)<br /> 544 U.S. 622,<br /> respondent must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the prospective jurors did <i<br /> >not</i> see the leg brace. <i >Deck</i><br /> does not support his contention. In that<br /> case, the high court observed that the record â€