SAN DIEGO POLICE MISCONDUCT: COURT OF APPEAL ORDERS "BRADY" DISCOVERY FROM POLICE PERSONNEL FILE IN LYING COP CASE
BRADY DUTY BUT NOT PITCHESS DUTY
The defendant was convicted of murder, and a key witness testified against him. The police detective told the defense that this guy wasn't a paid informant. Some years later, the defense stumbled across information which showed that the guy was in fact a paid informant. The defense now files a habeas petition.
The defense seeks Brady (373 U.S. 83) discovery of complaints in the detective's personnel file that the detective claimed that informants weren't paid when in fact they were.
This is an interesting case because the C/A finds no basis for Pitchess (11 C3d
531) discovery but does order review of the detective's personnel file on Brady grounds, correctly finding that prior complaints about the detective lying about informants being paid would impeach the detective's testimony at any habeas hearing. This is the first possible published case where the court finds a discovery duty under Brady but not
Eulloqui v. Superior Court; 2010 DJ DAR 1930; DJ, 2/7/10; C/A 2nd,