People v. Morganti

In People v. Morganti (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 643, the defendant contended comments made by a codefendant's counsel during closing argument had deprived him of due process. (Id. at pp. 672-673.) Counsel for Morganti's codefendant had argued that "'the evidence in this case shows no doubt that Mr. Morganti committed the crime of murder, and arson,'" and that the codefendant was guilty as an accessory after the fact. (Id. at p. 673.) On appeal, Morganti claimed the argument by codefendant's counsel "was tantamount to a confession and necessarily implicated Morganti in the murder." (Id. at p. 675.) He further asserted he had been deprived of his right to confront adverse witnesses because he could not cross-examine the codefendant's counsel. (Ibid.) The court rejected these arguments because counsel's closing argument was not evidence, and therefore codefendant's counsel was not a witness whom Morganti was entitled to confront. (Ibid.)