NO RECUSAL OF PROSECUTORS FOR REPRESENTING A VICTIM-OUTRAGEOUS
after affirming trial court denials of recusals of prosecutors in the two cases discussed below, stressing that appellate courts should defer to trial courts, the Supreme has abandoned any
pretense of integrity and reverses the juvenile court's recusal order here.
The DA not only objected to disclosure of the victim's medical and psychiatric records, the DA moved to quash the SDT and filed a writ petition after that motion was denied.
The Supreme Court does not overrule the case (Bullen, 204 CA3d 22) saying that the DA can't actually represent victims or witnesses; they just say that the DA didn't do that here. Right, moving to quash and running a writ wasn't representing the victim? What did the DA need to do, file a formal written notice of appearance?
Anyway, the Supreme Court says that although the DA can't represent the victim, and the DA isn't entitled to participate in a hearing on disclosure of the victim's records, the DA also isn't barred from participating. And sure, the DA may have overdone things with that writ and all, but they were just wrong, and being zealous and even wrong isn't a conflict.
People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.); 2008 DJ DAR 6791; DJ,
5/13/08; Cal. Supremes
California prosecutorial misconduct, prosecutorial miscondcut in california,
