I concur in the affirmance of the judgment convicting defendant of the willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder of his father. I also concur in the upholding of the determination of death-eligibility.
I dissent, however, from the affirmance of the judgment convicting defendant of the willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder of his stepmother and stepsister. As I shall explain, the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilty as to these two offenses—specifically, it is insufficient on the elements of premeditation and deliberation.
I also dissent from the affirmance of the judgment imposing the penalty of death. As I shall explain, the trial court erred by granting a request by defendant to prosecute the case for death at the penalty phase of this capital trial. The error requires reversal: it resulted in a breakdown of the adversary process and thereby rendered the jury’s verdict of death unreliable as a matter of law.
I
I turn first to the issue whether the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding defendant guilty of the willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder of his stepmother and stepsister.
When a court assesses the sufficiency of the evidence, its “task is to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The judgment must be supported by ‘substantial evidence,’ which has been defined as evidence that ‘reasonably inspires *1235confidence and is of “solid value.” ’ ” (People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 19 [249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843] (per Kaufman, J.).) The term “substantial evidence,” of course, means solid evidence and not mere speculation. In any given case, a court “may speculate about any number of scenarios that may have occurred .... A reasonable inference, however, may not be based on suspicion alone, or on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture, or guess work. ... A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than ... a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” (Id. at p. 21, italics in original, internal quotation marks and paragraphing omitted.)
In People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15 [73 Cal.Rptr. 550, 447 P.2d 942], this court stated: “The type of evidence which this court has found sufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation and deliberation falls into three basic categories: (1) facts about how and what defendant did prior to the actual killing which show that the defendant was engaged in activity directed toward, and explicable as intended to result in, the killing—what may be characterized as ‘planning’ activity; (2) facts about the defendant’s prior relationship and/or conduct with the victim from which the jury could reasonably infer a ‘motive’ to kill the victim, which inference of motive, together with facts of type (1) or (3), would in turn support an inference that the killing was the result of ‘a pre-existing reflection’ and ‘careful thought and weighing of considerations’ rather than ‘mere unconsidered or rash impulse hastily executed’ [citation]; (3) facts about the nature of the killing from which the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a ‘preconceived design’ to take his victim’s life in a particular way for a ‘reason’ which the jury can reasonably infer from facts of type (1) or (2).
“Analysis of the cases will show that this court sustains verdicts of first degree murder typically when there is evidence of all three types and otherwise requires at least extremely strong evidence of (1) or evidence of (2) in conjunction with either (1) or (3).” (70 Cal.2d at pp. 26-27, italics in original.)
In my view, it is plain that a rational trier of fact should not have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the premeditated and deliberate murder of his stepmother and stepsister: premeditation and deliberation were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the evidence of these two elements is practically nonexistent, and was certainly far too insubstantial to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt: at most, the record supports an inference that the killings resulted from an explosion of violence without significant forethought or reflection on the part of defendant.
*1236Specifically, there is no substantial evidence that defendant planned his attack on his stepmother and stepsister. The majority cite testimony to the effect that after shooting his father, defendant “reload[ed] the rifle, or adjusted] or inspected] it in some manner, and then enter[ed] the residence” and killed his stepmother and stepsister. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1210.) Such testimony may perhaps allow speculation that defendant planned the later killings. But “speculation” is not “evidence,” less still “substantial evidence.”
Next, there is no substantial evidence that defendant had a motive to kill his stepmother and stepsister. The majority evidently accept an elimination-of-witnesses theory presented by the Attorney General. But the Attorney General himself admits in his brief that this theory is “merely speculation.” As stated above, “speculation” is not “evidence.”
Finally, there is no substantial evidence that defendant employed a manner of killing his stepmother and stepsister that indicates a preconceived design to kill in a certain way. The majority expressly find that “The manner in which defendant killed [his stepmother] was . . . particular and exacting” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1210), and impliedly find that the manner in which he killed his stepsister was similar. The record, however, reveals no substantial evidence of a “particular and exacting” manner of killing. I recognize that defendant’s conduct arguably supports an inference of intent to kill. But such an intent, of course, does not amount to or entail premeditation or deliberation in and of itself. (See People v. Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 26.)
Therefore, I would hold that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding defendant guilty of the willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder of his stepmother and stepsister.
II
I turn next to the issue whether the trial court committed reversible error when it granted defendant’s request to prosecute the case for death at the penalty phase of his capital trial.
Manifestly, the penalty phase of a capital trial in this state is an adversary process. “The very premise of our adversary system of criminal justice is that partisan advocacy on both sides of a case will best promote the ultimate objective” of punishment in accordance with deserts. (Herring v. New York (1975) 422 U.S. 853, 862 [45 L.Ed.2d 593, 600, 95 S.Ct. 2550]; accord, United States v. Cronic (1984) 466 U.S. 648, 655 [80 L.Ed.2d 657, 665, 104 S.Ct. 2039].) In other words, “The system assumes that adversarial testing *1237will ultimately advance the public interest in truth and fairness.” (Polk County v. Dodson (1981) 454 U.S. 312, 318 [70 L.Ed.2d 509, 516, 102 S.Ct. 445].) It follows that the system requires “meaningful adversarial testing.” (United States v. Cronic, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 656 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 666].) When such testing is absent, the process breaks down and hence its result must be deemed unreliable as a matter of law. (See id. at p. 659 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 668]; see also Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, 577-578 [92 L.Ed.2d 460, 470-471, 106 S.Ct. 3101] [to similar effect]; Satterwhite v. Texas (1988) 486 U.S. 249, 256-257 [100 L.Ed.2d 284, 293-294 108 S.Ct. 1792, 1797] [impliedly following the Rose analysis].)
Further, as the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, “the penalty of death is qualitatively different from a sentence of imprisonment, however long. Death, in its finality, differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year prison term differs from one of only a year or two. Because of that qualitative difference, there is a corresponding difference in the need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.” (Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) 428 U.S. 280, 305 [49 L.Ed.2d 944, 961, 96 S.Ct. 2978] (opn. of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); accord, Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985) 472 U.S. 320, 329-330 [86 L.Ed.2d 231, 239-230, 105 S.Ct. 2633]; California v. Ramos (1983) 463 U.S. 992, 998-999, fn. 9 [77 L.Ed.2d 1171, 1178-1180, 103 S.Ct. 3446], citing cases.)
Immediately after the jury returned its verdict at the guilt phase, defendant addressed the trial court as follows. “Your Honor, I would just like to say now that I have been through the convicted—it is not fair. I feel that having just filed it, it might be that I would like for [defense counsel] as my co-counsel, and the reason I want to go pro[.] per[.] is so that—see, I don’t want to put up no defense, because really it is counterproductive, [fl] The jury has already sentenced me to death. You know what I’m saying? [(¡] All they got to do now is tell me whether I die of natural causes or whether they send it up by the chamber, and it don’t make no never-mind to me except for the fact that I’m only 20 years old, and I really can’t picture myself, you know, life without parole means life without—unless you get a clemency from the Governor, and I really don’t see that happening, [fl] I really don’t want to put on a defense. I just want to be able to address the jury and, you know, seek the death penalty myself, because I really don’t intend spending the rest of my natural life in some institution, you know, and I would have—I would like to, you know, address the jury and, you know, whatever, but I would like to do this in the capacity of pro[.] per[.] so that the prosecution is going to seek the death penalty. That’s cool, [fl] All right. I’m going to help him.”
*1238Defendant subsequently made it clear that he desired to put on a case for death independent of the prosecution: he acknowledged that he “intend[ed] to call such witnesses which would aid the prosecution in obtaining the death penalty.”
The trial court recognized defendant’s intent. When defendant requested a continuance and law library privileges in order to prepare his case, the following colloquy ensued.
“The Court: It is a unique situation, a unique problem that is presented to this court, [fl] I have to tell you that it is not my intention to grant you a continuation, continuation of the penalty phase for that purpose.
“The Defendant: How can I go up against a man who has been practicing law longer than I have been alive?
“The Court: It doesn’t sound like you are going against him. He is not arguing for life. He is arguing for death, [fl] What you are doing is concurring with the position the People are taking.”
In my view, the trial court plainly erred when it granted defendant’s request to prosecute the case for death.
As stated above, the penalty phase of a capital trial in this state is an adversary process and the Constitution requires heightened reliability as to its outcome. A defendant has no right to attempt to subvert the process and thereby undermine the reliability of its result, and a court has no power to allow him to do so. (See, e.g., People v. Deere (1985) 41 Cal.3d 353, 362-364 [222 Cal.Rptr. 13, 710 P.2d 925] [holding that the state has a strong independent interest in the reliability of the penalty determination in a capital case]; People v. Chadd (1981) 28 Cal.3d 739, 749-753 [170 Cal.Rptr. 798, 621 P.2d 837] [to similar effect]; People v. Stanworth (1969) 71 Cal.2d 820, 832-834 [80 Cal.Rptr. 49, 457 P.2d 889] [to similar effect]; see also People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 960-961 [248 Cal.Rptr. 467, 755 P.2d 917] [impliedly approving the Deere holding]; People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, 1149-1152 [245 Cal.Rptr. 635, 751 P.2d 901] [same]; People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 541-543 [224 Cal.Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251] [following Deere].) Thus, the trial court errs when it permits a defendant to try to subvert the adversary process and undermine its reliability indirectly through counsel. (See People v. Deere, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 368-370 (conc. opn. of Broussard, J.).) Consequently, it errs when it permits him to seek the same goal directly through his own efforts.
In this case, the trial court was obligated to deny defendant’s request to prosecute the case for death in order to preserve the integrity of the adver*1239sary process and thereby safeguard the reliability of its outcome. It failed to do so. It thereby committed error.
In arriving at the contrary conclusion, the majority rely on Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562, 95 S.Ct. 2525], As will appear, their reliance is misplaced: the trial court’s ruling was not compelled by Faretta, nor was it even consistent with the logic of that decision.
In Faretta, the United States Supreme Court held that “The Sixth Amendment . . . grants to the accused personally the right to make his defense.” (422 U.S. at p. 819 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 572].) In support the court cited, inter alia, the “nearly universal conviction, on the part of our people as well as our courts, that forcing a lawyer upon an unwilling defendant is contrary to his basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so.” (Id. at p. 817 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 572].) It defined “the right to self-representation” as the right “to make one’s own defense personally.” (Id. at p. 819 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 572].) It observed that “the [Sixth] Amendment constitutionalizes the right in an adversary criminal trial to make a defense as we know it.” (Id. at p. 818 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 572].)
In McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984) 465 U.S. 168 [79 L.Ed.2d 122, 104 S.Ct. 944], the court made express what it had clearly implied in Faretta. “[T]he defendant’s right to proceed pro se exists in the larger context of the criminal trial designed to determine whether or not a defendant is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.” (Id. at pp. 177-178, fn. 8 [79 L.Ed.2d at p. 133].)
Thus, viewed within this context the right of self-representation has as at least one of its purposes the safeguarding of the criminal trial as a proceeding that is adversarial not merely in name but also and especially in substance. (See Faretta v. California, supra, 422 U.S. at pp. 812-834 [45 L.Ed.2d at pp. 569-581].)
I return to the case at bar. To begin with, the record shows that defendant did not have a right to prosecute the case for death under Faretta.
As stated above, under Faretta a criminal defendant has a “basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so” (id. at p. 817 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 572]), a “right to make a defense as we know it” “in an adversarial criminal trial” (id. at p. 818 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 572]). He does not have a right to *1240prosecute himself. Defendant, of course, did not seek to mount a defense, but rather desired to direct an independent prosecution.
As also stated above, at least one of the purposes of the right of self-representation is to safeguard the trial as an adversary proceeding. Defendant, however, invoked this right not to participate directly in the process but rather to destroy it with his own hands and make the penalty phase what it turned out to be—a sham and a mockery of justice.
But in any event, even if defendant could have invoked the authority of Faretta in support of his request to prosecute the case for death, he did not effectively do so here. The reasons are plain. The request seems too little. When the motion is scrutinized in the context in which it was made and not in light of subsequent events, it appears to seek cocounsel status and not self-representation properly so-called. (See People v. Wheeler (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 1056, 1059 [137 Cal.Rptr. 791].) The request, however, was certainly too late. The motion was not made prior to trial, but only shortly before the opening of the penalty phase. (See People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 369 [247 Cal.Rptr. 31, 753 P.2d 1109].)
In short, the granting of defendant’s request to prosecute the case for death is not supported by Faretta and is indeed inconsistent with the logic of that decision. Faretta is a shield for the criminal defendant; he may use the right of self-representation to defend himself and preserve the adversary process. (See id., 422 U.S. at pp. 818-834 [45 L.Ed.2d at pp. 572-581].) Faretta—contrary to the majority’s apparent view—is not a sword for the defendant; he may not use the right of self-representation to prosecute himself and undermine the adversary process. (See id., at pp. 834-835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581].) As the Faretta court itself stated: “The right of self-representation is not a license to abuse the dignity of the courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” (Id. at p. 835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581].) A fortiori, the right of self-representation is not a license to subvert the very adversary process of which it is but one part.
In holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendant’s request to prosecute the case for death, the majority also appear to conclude that the ruling was not inconsistent with the nature of the penalty phase as an adversary process or the constitutional requirement of heightened reliability for the penalty determination. I cannot agree.
*1241First, the court’s ruling left the penalty phase unprotected in the face of the direct attack defendant openly set out to mount against the adversary process. The majority seem to say the court took steps to safeguard the formal characteristics of the process. But it manifestly took no steps whatever to preserve its substance. And as explained above, it is the substance and not the formal characteristics that is critical here. The majority also seem to say the court could not have done more than it did. I disagree. It may well be the court could not have compelled defendant to put on a meaningful case for life. But it could perhaps have appointed independent counsel to put on such a case—and it certainly could have barred defendant from prosecuting a case for death.
Second, the court’s ruling permitted, if not invited, the undermining of the reliability of the penalty determination at defendant’s hands. As explained above, whether the outcome of the penalty phase is reliable turns on the presence of “meaningful adversarial testing.” (United States v. Cronic, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 656 [80 L.Ed.2d at p. 666].) The court, however, allowed the penalty phase to degenerate—as degenerate it did—into a proceeding in which there would be no “adversarial testing,” “meaningful” or otherwise.1
I turn now from the fact of error to its consequences. In my view, on these facts reversal is required without consideration of the existence vel non of specific prejudice. As the record establishes beyond peradventure, the error resulted in a breakdown of the adversary process and thereby rendered the jury’s verdict unreliable as a matter of law.
At the penalty phase the prosecution presented in aggravation evidence that defendant had attempted with a pellet gun to rob an elderly woman at a church. At a bench conference, defendant made the following complaint: “in my opinion, [the prosecutor] is not bringing out nothing aggravating. His job is to bring out aggravating circumstances. He’s talking about this one robbery. There is another robbery where people were shot. If he’s not *1242going to call them, I will call them.” The prosecutor responded: “There is evidence the defendant attempted to commit another robbery. However, the victim in that case, from what I am able to read from the reports, cannot identify the defendant, therefore we cannot bring him in.” Defendant replied: “I’ll stipulate [to identity].” Defense counsel, however, would not join in the proposed stipulation and the prosecutor refused to accept the offer. During cross-examination of one of the prosecution’s witnesses, defendant elicited testimony to the effect that he was a suspect in an attempted robbery of an elderly couple during which some type of handgun was apparently fired.
The prosecution also presented evidence that defendant had been arrested by two police officers for carrying a concealed weapon—a pellet gun—and that he stated to one of the officers after his arrest that “if he had a choice, he would have gone ahead and shot one of us . . . .” During cross-examination of one of the prosecution’s witnesses, defendant elicited testimony that when he was arrested he had in his possession a “robbery kit,” including a carton of 1,500 pellets.
The defense presented no evidence whatever in the penalty phase. Defendant had requested permission from the court to introduce photographs of the victims in death. The prosecutor stated: “I never brought [the photographs], never intended to bring them into evidence, so the court has never seen them nor have I ever intended to offer them in evidence. [j[] I felt they would have been inflammatory and the court wouldn’t put them in evidence anyway.” The court denied defendant’s request.
In his closing argument, the prosecutor asked for the death penalty, arguing there was no evidence in mitigation: “The defendant had an opportunity, if he so chose to do, he could have presented factors in mitigation. You heard none”; and, “He had the right to show you, if there was any factors in mitigation, he could have presented testimony. He chose not to do so.”
In his closing argument, defendant also asked for the death penalty, arguing there was no evidence in mitigation: “I didn’t offer no mitigating circumstances, because there ain’t no mitigating circumstances. There ain’t none.” Moreover, he developed a theme, which he stated time and again, to the effect that he would eventually get out of prison if he were sentenced to a term of life without possibility of parole. For example, at one point he said: “Let me talk a little about life without possibility of parole. [^|] People *1243throw that term around like it means something. I’m going to tell you something. It don’t mean nothing, [fl] I can’t find it right now, but I think you will find that life without possibility of parole can be modified in the future. This is California. People get out.” At another point he stated: “I’ll tell you something, I’ll be out.” Finally, he said: “Give me life and I’ll kill again, in prison.”
At a bench conference, defendant asked the trial court to deliver the discredited “Briggs Instruction” (see People v. Ramos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 136, 150-159 [207 Cal.Rptr. 800, 689 P.2d 430]) in an evident attempt to support the “I’ll get out” theme of his argument. The court denied the request.
In view of the foregoing it is evident that there was no “adversarial testing” at the penalty phase, “meaningful” or otherwise. The “defense”—if such it can be called—did not merely fail to participate in the proceedings in accordance with its role to—at the very least—“ ‘put the State to its proof ” (People v. Chadd, supra, 28 Cal.3d 739, 750, fn. 7). Rather, it actually aided the state by presenting an independent case for death, including aggravating evidence that the state had chosen not to present as unreliable.
It must be emphasized that contrary to the majority’s suggestion, the jury was not given instructions sufficient to repair the breakdown of the adversary process at the penalty phase—if indeed any such instructions could have been given.
It is true that at the guilt phase there was presented considerable evidence concerning defendant’s background and character that was potentially mitigating. It is also true that the trial court told the jurors that “In determining which penalty is to be imposed on the defendant, you shall consider all of the evidence which has been received during any part of the trial of this case, including the guilt phase." (Italics added.)
These facts, however, do not undermine my conclusion. To begin with, I have serious doubt that the jurors were effectively informed of their obligation to consider the potentially mitigating evidence presented at the guilt phase. To be sure, the court told them that in determining penalty they should take into account “any . . . aspect of defendant’s character . . . that defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” (Italics added.) But as stated above, defendant did not proffer any such evidence. Further, *1244both defendant and the prosecutor forcefully argued that no such evidence existed in the record. In any event, the jurors received insufficient guidance as to how they might consider the potentially mitigating evidence. Plainly, evidence does not declare its own weight and significance. (See Herring v. New York, supra, 422 U.S. at pp. 856-864 [45 L.Ed.2d at pp. 597-602] [discussing the constitutionally fundamental importance of closing argument in the adversary process].) The jurors did not receive guidance on the consideration of potentially mitigating evidence from both a prosecution and a defense perspective. Rather, they were told by both the prosecutor and defendant that there was no such evidence for them to consider.2
Accordingly, I believe that the trial court’s erroneous grant of defendant’s request to prosecute the case for death resulted in the breakdown of the adversary process and thereby rendered the jury’s verdict unreliable as a matter of law. The majority appear to be of the view that reliability is assured in this case because various formal characteristics of the adversary process are evident. But to my mind there is no blinking the fact that the substance of that process was altogether lacking. And it is the substance that is critical.
The concurring opinion takes the position that the erroneous grant of defendant’s request to prosecute the case for death was harmless. For the reasons stated above, I cannot conclude that the error is subject to harmless-error analysis under even the most stringent of standards. But even if I could, I would not be able to find an absence of prejudice.
The issue of penalty must be considered close. The evidence in aggravation, to be sure, was substantial. But “substantial” too—as both the majori*1245ty (maj. opn., ante, p. 1230) and the concurring opinion (conc. opn. of Lucas, C. J., ante, pp. 1233, 1234) concede—was the evidence in mitigation. The error considered here resulted in the maximization of the former evidence and the minimization of the latter, and thereby affected the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances to defendant’s prejudice. Accordingly, I believe that on the present record the error here cannot be deemed harmless under any standard.
In coming to the opposite conclusion, the concurring opinion asserts that “the aggravating evidence which defendant helped the prosecutor present was fairly insubstantial . . . when compared with the other aggravating circumstances in the case.” (Conc. opn. of Lucas, C. J., ante, p. 1234.) But this additional evidence—that defendant was a suspect in an attempted robbery of an elderly couple during which some type of handgun was apparently fired—cannot properly be labeled “fairly insubstantial.” In the abstract, perhaps, such evidence might not be considered particularly weighty. But in this case it must be: the attempted robbery of the elderly couple was clearly more serious than either of the two crimes presented by the prosecution.
The concurring opinion also asserts that “even if defendant had not been allowed to represent himself, he still would have had the right to address the jury and request a death sentence.” (Conc. opn. of Lucas, C. J., ante, p. 1234.) But although it is true that “the accused has a fundamental right to testify in his own behalf’ at the penalty phase of a capital trial (People v. Guzman, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 962), surely defendant could not have said as a witness all that he said as counsel. For example, he could not have testified, as he did in fact argue, that the penalty of life imprisonment without possibility of parole did not really mean life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
Finally, the concurring opinion asserts that the instructions adequately informed the jurors that in determining penalty they should consider the potentially mitigating evidence introduced at the guilt phase. But as the discussion above demonstrates, the instructions did no such thing.
Accordingly, I would hold that the trial court committed reversible error when it granted defendant’s request to prosecute the case for death at the penalty phase of his capital trial.
*1246III
For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the judgment convicting defendant of the first degree murder of his stepmother and stepsister. I would also reverse the judgment of death.
Broussard, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied August 31, 1989. Mosk, J., and Broussard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
By acting as it did—the majority’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding—the trial court also contravened the policy against state-aided suicide. As this court stated in People v. Deere, supra, 41 Cal.3d 353: “If the question is whether this defendant may elect to sacrifice his life to atone for the murders he committed, the answer is affirmative. While at common law suicide was a felony punishable by forfeiture of property to the king and ignominious burial, there is nothing in modern law to prevent a person from resolving or attempting to end his life. [Citation.] Indeed, there is a body of law evolving that appears to respect a person’s choice of how and when to die. [Citation.] [1j] However, if the question is whether a person may compel the people of the State of California to use their resources to take his life, the answer must be negative.” (Id. at pp. 361-362, italics added.)
It is not altogether clear whether defendant’s express “death wish” was sincere. I recognize that when he was being examined by a psychiatrist for a competency hearing after the penalty phase but before sentencing, defendant “admitted” he had sought the death penalty not to end his life but to expedite appeal to this court in the hope of reversal of the judgment in its entirety. I find it difficult to credit defendant’s “admission”: it is plainly inconsistent with the considerable delay defendant caused in the proceedings.
It is abundantly clear, however, that defendant reveled in the attention he received during his trial. In exploiting his own vices, he was much like Theodore Bundy, the condemned murderer who received vast news coverage throughout the country before his execution in early 1989. Several years ago, United States District Judge Gerhard Gesell chose to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on the killer of two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation rather than death. He explained: “ ‘It would not serve the ends of effective justice to allow the defendant the luxury of all the special attention a capital penalty would generate. His mistaken views of his own importance would be fed by the continued controversy and supplications surrounding the current legal controversy on the matter of capital punishment. [Defendant], you will die in jail, but at such time as God appoints.’ ” (Quoted in Dershowitz, Executions Embolden Fame-seeking Killers, S.F. Chronicle (Feb. 2, 1989) p. A23, col. 4.)