P. v. Durden
Jamel Durden appeals from his conviction of sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) in No. A121901, claiming that one of the police witnesses who identified him at trial was improperly allowed to assert a surveillance location privilege under Evidence Code section 1040 as to the vantage point from which he made his observations, without imposition by the court of an adverse finding under Evidence Code section 1042. He further requests that we review the sealed record of an in camera review of documents pursuant to a motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
In a related petition for writ of habeas corpus, No. A126649, Durden claims that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by allowing the prosecution to introduce a mug shot of him, without redacting information on the photograph revealing that it had been taken in connection with a prior arrest. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 (Strickland).) Defense counsel also failed to object when the prosecutor and police witnesses repeatedly referred to the photograph as a â€
Comments on P. v. Durden