California Criminal Lawyer Blog

This might seem like a niche juvenile sealing case, but I suspect it has great potential impact. The juvenile court found R.S. a delinquent ward of the juvenile court for having performed a lewd act on a 7-year old victim, M.L. The parents of M.L. want to sue the parents of R.S. through
their insurance company. The insurance company wants to view the tape of an interview of M.L. by a Child Abuse Services Team (CAST); that interview was done to pursue the juvenile delinquency action.

The juvenile court granted disclosure with an order limiting dissemination of the tape. The C/A upholds this disclosure order. This is a rare opinion on WIC 827, the statute governing inspection and disclosure of juvenile delinquency records. So why should you care? Have you ever sought disclosure of juvenile court delinquency (or dependency, for that matter) records so you could use them to impeach a prosecution witness?

This is a great case discussing the court rules and the law governing this topic.

R.S. v. Superior Court; 2009 DJ DAR 4857; DJ, 4/2/09; C/A 4th

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discovery , Evidence

Bookmark:

Here is yet another spectacularly awful case from the California Supreme Court relating to defense experts. In Zamudio (43 Cal.4th 327), the California Supreme Court said that the DA could present evidence that an item had been provided to the defense laboratory.

In this case, the DA repeatedly asked witnesses whether the sheriff's DNA lab could have been ordered to release samples to the defense for testing. Notably, the trial judge actually sustained defense objections, noting that this raised questions about the credibility and competency of defense counsel, a point the Supremes ignore.

The Supremes say these questions weren't a violation of work product, since no "writing" from the defense was involved. They brush aside claims of attorney-client privilege (no communication from a client), Griffin (380 U.S. 609) error (OK to comment on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence), and that the questions shifted the burden of proof to the defense.

This is really, really bad and we're going to have to develop strategies to deal with it. Of curse, we must all demand that the court pay for the retesting of evidence from the prosecution. But we need more...much more.

People v. Bennett; 2009 DJ DAR 1429; DJ, 1/30/09; Cal. Supremes

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Blood Tests , California Cases , DUI Defense , Discovery , Evidence

Bookmark:

NO PRE-PRELIMINARY HEARING PITCHESS DISCOVERY

Out top appellate counsel in the California criminal defense community are litigating whether the right to pre-prelim. discovery survived Prop. 115, and we thought this case might resolve it. But nope. Instead, they hold that we can't ever get Pitchess (11 Cal.3d 531)
discovery prior to prelims.

They say that it's "unlikely" that Pitchess discovery would actually affect the prelim., which is merely a limited probable cause hearing. But what if we could make a showing that in
this particular case it IS likely that disclosure of citizen complaints against the police officers would cause the preliminary hearing magistrate to refuse to hold the defendant to answer or find a lesser?

You know, like when I found out that San Diego Police Officer Broxterman was removed from the DUI enforcement unit and then suddenly reappeared ten years later making the same illegal traffic stops that got him into trouble ten years prior? And the prosecutors didn't tell us about it? ANd now he is gong to testify n my prelim about a traffic stop and other (false) stuff, and I can't impeach him with the conplaints about him? hhhh. Hush. Hush.

We still can't get discovery? What kind of rule is that? In any event, they can't now seriously claim that they are preserving testimony at this limited hearing where we can't find out much beforehand. California Public Defense Association appellate guru Mark Harvis is appellate counsel on this one. His writ petition was summarily denied the first time, after which the Cal. Supremes granted review and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal. Mark will petition the Supremes again.

People v. Galindo; 2009 DJ DAR 313; DJ, 1/9/09; C/A 2nd, Div. 8

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Cases , Discovery , Evidence

Bookmark:

The Cal. Supremes here decide when the police can retain all the copies of a sealed Hobbs (7 Cal.4th 948) search warrant affidavit. Their answer effectively bars this.

To obtain an order to retain all copies, the police have to show that disclosure would endanger an informant, that security procedures at the clerk's office are inadequate, that police security procedures are adequate, that the police have procedures to ensure retention of the affidavit for 10 years, and the magistrate must make a sufficient record of the documents reviewed to make sure that later on everyone can tell what was reviewed.

That didn't happen here, so letting the police keep all the copies was error.

And when are the police EVER going to be able to show that the clerk's office leaks like a sieve? Never.

So what happens to this defendant? The Supremes find that it's not impossible to reconstruct what happened here. So they remand for a full hearing to determine whether meaningful appellate review of the actual affidavit is in fact possible. If not, apparently the
warrant gets quashed. The police can't keep the only copies of sealed search warrant
affidavits any more, and we can still seek suppression if what was in those affidavits can't be reconstructed.

People v. Galland; 2008 DJ DAR 18856; DJ, 12/30/08; Cal. Supremes

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bad Cop - No Donut , California Cases , Discovery , Evidence , Police Misconduct Cases

Bookmark:

GOOD POST-VERDIN CASE; NO SHRINKING OUR CLIENTS DURING TRIAL

Here is a clear discovery win for the defense, although it is another affirmance of another deathpenalty case.

In Verdin (43 Cal.4th 1096), the California Supreme Court held that the discovery
statutes are the exclusive authorization for discovery orders directed to the defense, barring courts from making up ones not listed in Penal Code 1054.3.

In Verdin, the court said that prior to trial, judges can’t order your client to be “shrunk,” that is, examined by DA mental health experts, even though you put your client’s mental state in issue (with some exceptions).

But what about DURING trial? The Supremes say that Verdin controls! No court can order our client to submit to a mental health exam, even during trial. Nor can the DA then get a jury instruction or be allowed to argue that your refusal to submit to such an exam shows that your client is guilty.

On a second point, the recent Zamudio (43 C4th 327) case said that the DA could present evidence that an item had been provided to the defense laboratory. Here the prosecution asked the defense expert whether some of the defendant's blood sample had been released for independent analysis. The Supremes make the assumption that the DA's question to its expert about a defense test were erroneous, but find it harmless. Hey, at least they didn't say it was correct.

People v. Wallace; 2008 DJ DAR 12675; DJ, 8/15/08; Cal. Supremes

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE NEWS: JUDGES CAN'T ORDER PSYCHIATRIC EXAMS ON CLIENTS" »

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Cases , Discovery

Bookmark:

This case absolutely defies logic and supports the weirdo proposition that defense attorneys have to assist prosecutors when they lose their witnesses. You've got to be kidding!

Okay, so in this case, the DA got to the end of his case. But there was no victim to put on to support counts 3 and 4. The judge granted a dismissal on those counts pursuant to Penal Code sec. 118.1 granted.

The defendant informed his lawyer that he knew where the victim was and wanted her called on the remaining counts. Hide and seek! The court was outraged, and vacated its 1118.1 dismissal, resuscitating the dismissed counts.

Ironically, the jury acquitted on counts 3 and 4. So, then, why the outrage?

But the California Court of Appeal is outraged at this malfeasance by the defendant. He's estopped from claiming double jeopardy because of forfeiture by wrongdoing.

This is an extreme case: the court claimed the defendant intentionally interfered with the trial process with his incredibly transparent ploy. If you're scratching your head, join the group. What, exactly, did the defendant do wrong? When the DA announced that he couldn't find the victim, was the defendant supposed to jump up and announce that he knew where she was?

Has the C/A heard of the 5th Amendment?

So, when the prosecutors lose their witnesses next time, make sure you get up and give them directions. This is just another example of judges trying to help inept prosecutors.

People v. Pearson; 2008 DJ DAR 12035; DJ, 8/4/08; C/A 2nd, Div. 6

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Cases , Discovery , Evidence

Bookmark:

PITCHESS DISCOVERY WIN

The trial court denied this Pitchess (11 C3d 531) motion in a misdemeanor case. The City Attorney argues that the facts are essentially agreed upon, and that the defense justification for
discovery is really just about differences in perceptions.

The Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal disagrees, saying the allegations in the defense affidavit that the police beat up the defendant and that the defendant never did a lot of the stuff the police claimed weren't just a difference in perception.

Matt Braner, San Diego PD, was successful appellate counsel. City Attorney Mike Aguirre and his incompetent hatchetman, David Stotland, lost - again. Perhaps they should think about protecting the public from the bad cops?

Uybungco v. Superior Court; 2008 DJ DAR 8444; DJ, 6/11/08; C/A 4th

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bad Cop - No Donut , California Cases , Discovery , Pitchess , Police Misconduct Cases

Bookmark:

GETTING JUROR INFORMATION

When the jury was polled after they convicted the defendant, they all said yes except juror #2, who said nothing. The judge asked again, juror #2 paused, then said yes.

The other jurors left the room, and the judge asked #2 if the guilty verdict was her verdict, she said no, but then said that she felt compelled to vote guilty because the other jurors were voting guilty.

The juror said, "I had reasonable doubt." When asked why, she said that this was a felony. The judge said, setting that aside, did the DA prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt; yes.

Incredibly, over an excellent dissent, the Court of Appeal here holds that these facts fail to establish justification for disclosure of juror information, to permit the defense to follow this up. The majority says, hey, the LAST answer was yes, that's good enough. Read the dissent for why this is just plain wrong.
People v. Carrasco; 2008 DJ DAR 8421; DJ, 6/11/08; C/A 2nd, Div. 8

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Cases , Discovery

Bookmark:

Because prosecution did not fully utilize Penal Code section 1334 et seq. (Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from without the States in Criminal Cases) by requesting that witness be taken into custody even thought the witness had made it clear she would not appear it did not show due diligence and San Diego Judge John S. Einhorn erred in allowing the government to introduce testimony.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1219, subdivision (b), which restricts the court's power to use incarceration to compel testimony of a sexual assault victim does not affect the court's power to order that an alleged victim of a sexual assault be brought before it or seek that the witness be taken into custody.

People v. Cogswell (C.A. 4th, 10/31/07, D049038) 07 C.D.O.S. 12668

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Cases , Discovery , Evidence , In The News , Judicial Misconduct Cases

Bookmark:

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER NEWS

This is a long awaited win by Orange County Deputy Public Defender Don Landis in which the Supreme Court agreed that defense attorneys are entitled to file Pitchess (11 Cal.3d 531) declarations under seal. California criminal defense attorneys have been waiting with baited breath for this decision.

The court restates Warrick (35 Cal.4th 1011) stating the showing is sufficient if defense counsel articulates that the police misconduct might or could have occurred. The
court says that in light of Warrick, defense counsel won't need to disclose
privileged information. All defense counsel has to do is to simply deny the events claimed by the police.

This greatly aids defense attorneys in our efforts to prevail on Pitchess motions because the courts now are reiterating just how minimal our showing needs to be. If defense counsel decides to disclose privileged information, it can be filed it under seal and
then the court rules on it. The court disapproves Davenport (96 CA4th 255),
and rules that the City Attorney, representing the police officer, is NOT
to get an unredacted copy of the affidavit.

Thisa is a long-awaited and much needed win for California criminal defense lawyers.

Garcia v. Superior Court; 2007 DJ DAR; DJ, 8/10/07; Cal. Supreme Court.

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS MAY FILE SEALED DECLARATIONS IN PITCHESS DISCOVERY MOTIONS" »

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bad Cop - No Donut , California Cases , Discovery , Pitchess , Police Misconduct Cases

Bookmark: