arguing that Harris had been denied his right to a fair trial due to extensive and prejudicial pretrial publicity, partially the product of the “sorry spectacle of prosecutorial offices publicly vying with each other to have ‘first crack’ at convicting the accused”
How later courts described this case
- arguing that Harris had been denied his right to a fair trial due to extensive and prejudicial pretrial publicity, partially the product of the “sorry spectacle of prosecutorial offices publicly vying with each other to have ‘first crack’ at convicting the accused”
- Harris death qualification claim was based on Hovey
- upholding admissibility of evidence of other violent crimes
- no error in denying motion where publicity detailed prior manslaughter conviction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TOBRINER, J., Concurring.
For the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinions of the Chief Justice and Justice Mosk in People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ], I continue to believe that the death penalty statute under which defendant was convicted is unconstitutional. Until the majority opinion in Jackson is reversed by the United States Supreme Court or is overruled by a majority of this court, however, I consider myself bound by that decision’s holding. Because I agree with the present majority’s conclusion that under Murphy v. Florida (1975) 421 U.S. 794 [ 44 L.Ed.2d 589 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 ], the record in this case does not demonstrate that defendant was denied a fair trial, I concur in the judgment.