306.) The info on these files about Oswald's day of beginning, American passport selection and pursuits and statements at the Embassy is consistent with other info readily available to the Commission.549 CIA industry experts have given their view that the handwriting on the visa application which purports to be Oswald's is in simple fact his and that, despite the fact that the handwritten notations on the base of the doc are way too transient and faint to permit a conclusive determination, they are in all probability Senora Duran's.550 The apparel which Oswald was carrying in the photograph which appears on the software look to be the exact same as some of these uncovered between his consequences after the assassination, and the photograph alone seems to be from the similar unfavorable as a photograph located among the his consequences.551 Nothing on any of the paperwork raises a suspicion that they could possibly not be reliable. He described this person as tall, skinny, donning a white shirt, and with a gun in his waistband-and this description was confirmed by quite a few other witnesses as formerly discussed.
As reviewed over, to prevail on a declare of ineffective support, a defendant need to exhibit both deficient effectiveness and ensuing prejudice. During closing argument, the prosecutor discussed these factors and identified the machete as the lethal weapon. The prosecutor then said, "I just want the record, then, to replicate that aside from the exceptions manufactured by Defense, Defense is becoming a member of in the State's proposed recommendations and is glad with all the guidance submitted by the Court." RP (Dec. 28, 2010) at 1280. Both protection counsel agreed. When proceedings resumed, the prosecutor requested a couple of more concerns and the courtroom admitted show 30-a photograph of Martinez and the tattoos on his arms. Or, far more probable, YutuCam some unholy blend of both. The higher the ratio of commuting time to perform- ing time, the a lot more irrational, irritating, and absurd the procedure of shuttling back and forth. For the to start with time on charm, Martinez and Veteta-Contreras argue that the "to convict" instruction for depend I, recommendations fourteen and 15, bundled an uncharged option implies. Veteta-Contreras argues that his initial diploma theft and attempted initially degree robbery convictions ought to be reversed because the instruction defining the term "robbery" (instruction 13) involved the uncharged alternative implies that "the defendant was `armed with a deadly weapon.'" Br.
Any error with regards to the trial court's definitional instruction for initially degree robbery was harmless for many causes. First, as observed above, the demo court's subsequent "to convict" instruction integrated only the billed different indicates for committing the criminal offense. Thus, any mistake was harmless because the court's subsequent instruction clearly described the criminal offense. The instruction defining first degree robbery stated, "A person commits the crime of theft in the first degree when in the fee of a robbery he or she is armed with a deadly weapon or displays what appears to be a firearm or other deadly weapon." Both protection counsel mentioned satisfaction with this instruction and joined in proposing it. In counts I and II, the State billed Veteta-Contreras with 1st degree robbery of Flores-Cruz and attempted very first diploma theft of Duran-Acosta. In count I, the State charged Veteta-Contreras and Martinez with first degree theft of Flores-Cruz. The State also charged Veteta-Contreras and Martinez with a fatal weapon sentencing improvement on Count I, based mostly on the machete. We conclude that below the doctrine of invited mistake, Veteta-Contreras and Martinez may well not challenge jury directions they proposed.
Veteta-Contreras does not reply to the State's invited mistake argument. Both protection counsel said that they desired not to submit a entire packet of jury guidelines if they agreed with the State's proposed guidance. The choose reviewed the photograph and requested protection counsel to explain his "display-up" objection. In his opening brief, Martinez argues that the to-convict instruction quoted previously mentioned bundled the phrase "firearm" and that the show of an apparent firearm is a distinctive substitute suggests from the show of an obvious "other deadly weapon." But in his reply, Martinez acknowledges that his counsel agreed to the jury instructions underneath and concedes that the invited error doctrine bars him from challenging instruction 14 on immediate attractiveness. When an offense may well be committed by alternative indicates, it is mistake to instruct the jury on a usually means that was not alleged in the info, no matter of the assortment of proof admitted at demo.
