Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Motion to impeach a witness

It generally doesn't make sense to impeach a witness at a prelim, and it almost never makes sense to argue contrary evidence there. The point of the prelim is not to decide whether you are guilty but merely to see whether the prosecution's evidence could persuade a reasonable jury that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since the jury might decide not to believe your evidence, there was little reason to raise it at the prelim. Just as it makes no sense for a poker player to show his cards before he has to, there is little reason to reveal your defense evidence until doing so would actually help.

Even a witness who is caught lying in part of his testimony may be telling the truth in other parts. Imeaching this officer would probably not have changed the result of the prelim, but it would have alerted the prosecutor to these lies and made it harder for you to use them to your advantage when doing so could really help you.

Keep in mind that what you consider solid proof that the officer is lying may not appear that way to the judge. Even if your PD had done what you wanted him to do, the impact might have been much less dramatic than you believe.

I see little point in making a complaint against your PD. As I have explained, his decision not to impeach was probably a wise tactical move. Even if it turns out to be unwise, tactical decisions are solely for the lawyer to make. The client does not have the right to overrule the lawyer on such decisions, so it doesn't matter that he didn't follow your instructions.