Southern California law enforcement will step up DUI enforcement over the summer. Law enforcement will really step it up over the holidays, starting with Memorial Day weekend, and simmering down after Labor Day.

It's starting now. Memorize these tips. They may come in handy over the holidays.

1. If you drive during the summer holidays, and you plan on having a cocktail or two, make sure you know where your license, registration and proof of insurance are. Police historically write in their DUI reports (putting only facts that harm you in them) that the suspect "fumbled for his wallet" and couldn't find his registration. They use this to try to show you were impaired. Be prepared.

2. When you get signaled by the officer to pull over by the officer for a DUI assessment, do so immediately and safely. Roll down your window and put your hands on the steering wheel.

3. If an officer asks you if you know why you are being pulled over, remember you don't have to answer. What a dumb question! He knows why he is pulling you over. He is pulling you over to assess you for drunk driving, and he's using the fact that you might have committed some minor vehicle code violations as an excuse. Don't make any admissions to him. So, you can just ask him, "why?"

4. The next question the officer is likely to ask is, "Have you had anything to drink tonight." Remember your rights? You are not required to speak to officers. I know, I know, you think, "But if I don't talk to the officer, he will be mad." Let him be. You are not at a social gathering; he is not invited to your New Year's day party. So don't worry about how he feels. He is collecting evidence against you. Don't give him any. It is best to say, "Officer, I appreciate what you do for a living, but I don't wish to answer any of your questions." You do NOT have to answer. The less from you he gets, the better for you in the long run. He is gathering evidence. But, you say, maybe he will let me go if he knows I'm being honest with him. NO. Most people who are pulled over and have alcohol on their breath get arrested. It's just a fact of life. Don't give him anything to put in that report that he can use against you later.

5. He may then say, "I'd like you to complete a series of tests for me." Again, let him know that you do not wish to participate in any tests. You are not required to comply. Officers try to give a series of field tests to determine if you are impaired. I have NEVER known any officer to do these as per the standardized protocol. I hold a certification authorized by the United Stated Department of Transportation to administer these tests, and was required to pass a practical and written test to get that certification given by a nationally re-known sergeant with the Idaho State Police. Cops learn how to do these, and then promptly forget them, making up their own "tests." Do not do them. Do NOT let the officer collect more false "evidence" against you. Just reiterate that you do not wish to perform and tests. It's your right.

6. The DUI investigation officer may then tell you he wants you to take an in field breath, hand held, breath test. Do not take this "test." It is unreliable, and regularly exhibits blood alcohol numbers higher than what you really are. The cop really, really wants you to do this now, because you have made no statements, and you have refused his field "tests." He wants this badly. He NEEDS some evidence. Do not do it. You are NOT required to blow into the little hand held machine.

7. The officer will most likely arrest you, cuff and take you downtown. You will be required to take a breath or blood test. You must choose to take one of these tests, or he will take what is called a "forced blood test" and your driver's license will be suspended for a full year.

A few pointers: If you are still absorbing alcohol, the breath test will read high. It is also an INDIRECT measurement of blood alcohol level. If you take blood, you won't get a result for at least a week. Also, SDPD and Sheriff's don't use the proper amount of sodium fluoride and potassium oxalate in the blood tubes, so you can attack those results later. Personally, I wouldn't let anyone hired by the city or county to draw my blood, after learning all I know about the incompetence of the people drawing the blood, and the lack of sanitations protocol in place. Why risk infection?

If you are arrested, you will be released within 12 hours on your promise to appear. You will received a pink piece of paper called a "DS-367." This document tells you that you, or your lawyer, must call the Department of Motor Vehicle within ten days of the arrest to secure a hearing to determine whether or not the DMV will take your license. Do not miss this deadline or you will be suspended automatically.

So, be careful. Don't drink and drive if you can help it. Drive safely. Don't talk to cops. Be polite, but do not let them gather inculpatory evidence against you. And when you get home call this San Diego DUI Defense lawyer.

(San Diego DUI Defense, Chula Vista DUI Defense, Vista DUI Defense, El Cajon DUI Defense, Imperial County DUI Defense, El Centro DUI Defense, Orange County DUI Defense, Riverside DUI Defense, San Bernardino DUI Defense, Los Angeles DUI Defense, San Diego DUI Defense Attorney, San DIego DUI Defense Lawyer, California DUI Defense, Murrieta DUI Defense, Temecula DUI Defense, Riverside DUI Defense, Chula Vista DUI Defense, El Cajon DUI Defense, Vista DUI Defense, Temecula DUI Defense, Brawley DUI Defense, El Centro DUI Defense)

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Dozens of San Diego State University students were arrested after a sweeping drug investigation found that some fraternity members openly dealt drugs and one even sent a mass text message advertising cocaine, authorities said Tuesday.

Two kilograms of cocaine were seized, along with 350 Ecstasy pills, marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, hash oil, methamphetamine, illicit prescription drugs, several guns and at least $60,000 in cash, authorities said.

Of the 96 people arrested, 75 were students. Eighteen of the students were arrested Tuesday when nine search warrants were executed at various locations including fraternities, said Jesse Rodriguez, San Diego County assistant district attorney.

The undercover probe, dubbed Operation Sudden Fall, was sparked by the cocaine overdose death of a student in May 2007, authorities said. As the investigation continued, another student, from Mesa College, died Feb. 26 of a cocaine overdose at an SDSU fraternity house, the DEA said.

Those arrested included a student who was about to receive a criminal justice degree and another who was to receive a master's degree in homeland security.

"A sad commentary is that when one of these individuals was arrested, they inquired as (to) whether or not his arrest and incarceration would have an effect on him becoming a federal law enforcement officer," said Ralph Partridge, special agent in charge of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in San Diego.

Some defendants were scheduled to appear in state court to face charges Tuesday.

During the probe investigators discovered that in some fraternities most members were aware of "organized drug dealing occurring from the fraternity houses by its members," the DEA said in a news release.

"Undercover agents purchased cocaine from fraternity members and confirmed that a hierarchy existed for the purpose of selling drugs for money," the DEA said.

The district attorney's office said search warrants were served in San Diego and suburban La Mesa, including the Theta Chi fraternity house and several apartments.

A member of Theta Chi sent out a mass text message to his "faithful customers" stating that he and his "associates" would be unable to sell cocaine while they were in Las Vegas over one weekend, according to the DEA. The text promoted a cocaine "sale" and listed the reduced prices.

Theta Chi's San Diego chapter declined to comment.

"We're talking to our advisers," said John Phillips, a past president of the chapter.

Dale Taylor, the fraternity's national executive director, said he was "obviously shocked and saddened" by the allegations.

Theta Chi has prohibited the San Diego chapter from group activities like parties or sports and will investigate additional disciplinary measures, up to expulsion of members or the entire chapter.

Theta Chi, based in Indianapolis, has 131 chapters in the U.S. and Canada and more than 161,000 initiates. It was founded in 1856.

The San Diego chapter was founded 61 years ago and has 65 members.

"They were on the upswing," Taylor said. "They had improved their recruitment. They were trying to raise money for a new house."

University police and federal drug agents worked together in the investigation, making more than 130 undercover drug buys at locations including fraternity houses, student parking areas and dormitories, authorities said.

Shawn Collinsworth, executive director of the national office of Phi Kappa Psi, said he was told by two of the SDSU fraternity chapter's leaders that four of its members were arrested. He said the fraternity is cooperating with the investigation.

"It isn't behavior becoming of Phi Kappa Psi," Collinsworth said.

San Diego State is one of the largest schools in California's state university system with about 34,000 students. The campus has an active network of fraternities and sororities.

DUMB COP ACCIDENTALLY SHOOTS CUFFED SUSPECT

The accidental shooting of a handcuffed suspect is subject to a reasonableness inquiry. A case "remarkably similar on its facts to that faced by the Fourth Circuit in Henry v. Purnell, 501 F.3d 374 (4th Cir. 2007)," involved a handcuffed arrestee who the defendant officer was attempting to Taser and shot with a Glock instead.

Here, however, the arrestee died. The inquiry is reasonableness, but that question was not decided by the district court, so the case is remanded. Torres v. City of Madera, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9648 (9th Cir. May 5, 2008):

Henry concluded, and we agree, that five factors were relevant to the reasonableness determination: (1) the nature of the training the officer had received to prevent incidents like this from happening; (2) whether the officer acted in accordance with that training; (3) whether following that training would have alerted the officer that he was holding a handgun; (4) whether the defendant's conduct heightened the officer's sense of danger; and (5) whether the defendant's conduct caused the officer to act with undue haste and inconsistently with that training. Henry, 501 F.3d at 383.

While these factors are relevant to the determination of whether Officer Noriega acted reasonably, we also stress that "the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97. Since the parties did not brief the issue of whether Officer Noriega's mistake was a reasonable one, the factual record is insufficiently developed for this court to make this determination, and we remand to the district court to determine in the first instance whether Noriega's conduct was unreasonable under Graham, 490 U.S. at 396-97, and to otherwise proceed with the matter.

Hayashi warrants support for 2nd Assembly term

ADMITTING one has made a mistake is a virtue in politics. Doing so reflects a willingness to learn and a degree of openness that one doesn't always find in the arena of big egos.
It's one reason we recommend that Democrats in Assembly District 18 give Mary Hayashi a chance to represent them for a second term. It's a many-splendored district, representing Hayward, San Leandro, Dublin, most of Castro Valley and Pleasanton, a part of Oakland and the unincorporated communities of Ashland, Cherryland, Sunol and San Lorenzo.

Hayashi's error came via her authorship of Assembly Bill 2377, which she says the "sheriff's association" asked her to sponsor. The bill unfortunately would make it more difficult for the public, criminal defendants and plaintiffs to obtain records of police misconduct.

It triggered a puff of protest, including a scathing analysis by San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi. Hayashi consulted with Adachi, has since dropped the bill, which ran contrary to making information about public employees public, and will not resurrect it.

"I'm new (this is her first two-year term), sometimes I make mistakes," she said, noting that she and her staff do their own research on bills and that she now understands the public policy implications of AB2377.

In less than two years, Hayashi has sponsored a number of bills, has become asssistant majority whip of the Democratic Caucus and chairs the Assembly Select Committee on Community Colleges.

Although Hayashi has sponsored laws dealing with health, child abuse, family violence, solar energy, unsafe ingredients in cosmetics, and others, she is particularly active in the neglected area of mental health. She calls improving mental health care "a personal issue" stemming from the loss of a sister to suicide.

She sponsored AB509 to create a state Office of Suicide Prevention that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger later established by executive order. She's also authored legislation that would establish suicide-prevention hot lines; require minimum training and continuing education in suicide prevention for therapists, psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers; and require insurers to cover mental health care.

Hayashi also introduced a bill in response to an issue in Hayward that would require the California Energy Commission to obtain the approval of local governments before allowing the construction of second or third thermal power plants in a city.

Constituents and campaign donors should also know that she has used campaign funds to retire more than $25,000 of the campaign debts of her husband, Dennis Hayashi. He's sought several public offices in recent years and is currently seeking an Alameda County Superior Court seat.

Her opponent in the June 3 primary is Jason Teramoto, a Castro Valley native, who has attended Chabot and Las Positas community colleges and the University of California, Berkeley.

An earnest young man of 33, Teramoto is a former president of the California Student Association of Community Colleges and was a congressional aide to Rep. Pete Stark from 2002 to 2005.

He advocates "universal, affordable, accessible" health care, opposes privatizing state parks and prisons, supports strong public education and strict environmental standards as well as the development of "green collar" industries and jobs.

The June 3 winner faces Republican Lou Filipovich in the November election.

Student pilots learn operating rules like the "eight hours from bottle to throttle" mnemonic to help remember minimum required intervals. Other details of this subject on which you may be tested include how and when pilots must report alcohol-related motor vehicle violations to the FAA. There are two reporting requirements. Complying with one does not satisfy the need to make the other report—nor are they made to the same FAA officials. Do you know the requirements?

One report is made on an application for an airman medical certificate. See the instructions page for "convictions or administrative action history."

A less-understood reporting obligation appears in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). It requires reporting a "motor vehicle action" not later than 60 days after the motor vehicle action is taken. "One of the distinctions is that this notification must be made to the FAA within a short time after the event occurs and may not wait until your next medical examination. In addition, the notification must be made to the FAA's security office, not the medical office; thus, disclosing this information on the medical application form, which you may have to do also, does not discharge your responsibility to report the information under FAR 61.15," Kathy Yodice explained in the July 2001 AOPA Flight Training's "Legal Briefing" column. See the column for a definition of a "motor vehicle action."

What happens after a report? "The effects of a report, or a failure to report, are serious. If a pilot does report a motor vehicle action, it will automatically trigger a review of the pilot's file to determine if the pilot continues to be eligible for his or her airman certificate (two or more in a three-year period and you are out) or medical certificate (a history of alcoholism). If a pilot fails to report even one conviction or administrative action, that is grounds for suspension or revocation of any pilot certificate or rating he holds. It is also grounds for denial of an application for a certificate or rating for up to one year after the date of the motor vehicle action," John Yodice said in the May 2002 AOPA Pilot column "Pilot Counsel: Flying and Driving."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Reportable Administrative Actions (Not a comprehensive list)
Revocation, suspension, or cancellation of driver license for:
Chemical test failure
Chemical test refusal
Administrative per se orders
10-day civil revocations
Express consent revocation/suspension
Examples of Reportable Convictions (Not a comprehensive list)
Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
Driving While Impaired (DWI)
Driving with an Unlawful Blood Alcohol Level
Operating While Under the Influence (OWUI)
Note: Under 14 CFR 61.15, all pilots must send a Notification Letter (MS Word) to FAA’s Security and Investigations Division, within 60 calendar days of the effective date of an alcohol-related conviction or administrative action.

Federal Aviation Administration
Security and Investigations Division (AMC-700)
P.O. Box 25810
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
Failure to Send a Notification Letter
Failure to send a Notification Letter within 60 days to FAA’s Security & Investigations Division is grounds for:

Denial of an application for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this regulation for up to one year after the date of the motor vehicle action
Suspension or revocation of any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this regulation

United States v. Mara (9th Cir. 4/28/08, 07-30102) 08 C.D.O.S. 4958

Held, even if claims are cognizable, the testimony did not violate the work product privilege as it applies to criminal cases (only "core" work product protected; see Garcia v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 63, 63, fn. 2).

The Court refuses to reach constitutional issues regarding the admission of the testimony because trial counsel did not object on constitutional grounds, leaving a writ of Habeas Corpus open on that issue.
.
People v. Zamudio (Ca. Sup. Ct., 4/21/08, S074414) 08 C.D.O.S. 4544

Customs officers at international airports may examine the electronic contents of a passenger's laptop computer without reasonable suspicion. The search here did not damage the computer and was not conducted in a "particularly offensive manner."

United States v. Arnold (9th Cir. 4/21/08) 06-50581) 08 C.D.O.S. 4533

Twenty years after DNA fingerprints were first admitted by American courts as a way to link suspects to crime scenes, a new and very different class of genetic test is approaching the bench.

Rather than simply proving, for example, that the blood on a suspect's clothes does or does not match that of a murder victim, these "second generation" DNA tests seek to shed light on the biological traits and psychological states of the accused. In effect, they allow genes to "testify" in ways never before possible, in some cases resolving long-standing legal tangles but in others raising new ones.

Already, chemical companies facing "toxic tort" claims have persuaded courts to order DNA tests on the people suing them, part of an attempt to show that the plaintiffs' own genes made them sick -- not the companies' products.

In other cases, defense attorneys are asking judges to admit test results suggesting that their clients have a genetic predisposition for violent or impulsive behavior, adding a potential "DNA defense" to a legal system that until now has held virtually everyone accountable for their actions except the insane or mentally retarded.

Some gene tests are even being touted for their capacity to help judges predict the likelihood that a convict, if released, will break the law again -- a measure of "future dangerousness" that raises questions about how far courts can go to abort crimes that have not yet been committed.

Most of these tests are still research tools hovering on the margins of admissibility; only a few have made the leap from the lab bench to the courtroom. But scientists' expanding ability to query people's genes, and lawyers' efforts to introduce those findings as evidence, are forcing scholars and judges to think in new ways about the Constitution's protections against self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure.

At its extreme, the prospect of getting an accurate handle on future dangerousness challenges the very notions of autonomy and free will that are at the core of any theory of criminal responsibility.

"So far, judges have been cautious," said Karen Rothenberg, dean of the University of Maryland School of Law. But given what Rothenberg calls the "love affair" that courts have had with DNA fingerprints, she and others fear that judges and juries will fall too quickly for the new tests.

"As the cost of gene testing comes down . . . we're likely to see clever defense counselors taking steps to use the outer reaches of genetic testing," said Judge Andre M. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, speaking at a recent Baltimore roundtable co-sponsored by the law school and the National Human Genome Research Institute. "The question is, can the judge manage the case so the jury is not taken down the primrose path of genetic test results?"

Shadows of Eugenics

Genes have had a rocky relationship with justice, dating at least to the early years of the last century, when eugenics laws encouraged forced sterilizations to break the cycle of "inherited criminality."

"Shiftlessness, nomadism, pauperism all were assumed to have biological and genetic causes," said Jeffrey R. Botkin, a physician and ethicist at the University of Utah School of Medicine.

Today, Botkin said, scientists know that genes are only part of what adds up to human health and behavior. But with environmental influences more difficult to pin down and a torrent of new, if preliminary, DNA findings to choose from, lawyers and judges are once again being tempted to lean heavily on genes to help them make difficult legal decisions, he said.

The only evidence used to convict Sommers was contaminated. Even the prosecution's chief expert at the trial suggested that it might be contaminated. But the dismissal of SOmmer's case came only after the defense attorney demanded retesting of the tissue samples. There was no arsenic in them. There never was.

The prosecutor trying the case, Laura Gunn, in an attempt to win a conviction at all costs, claimed Sommer's "motive" for killing her husband was to obtain the proceeds of his insurance policy. They put forth that after she obtained this policy, she puchased breast implants and partied. Murder for breast implants? That, plus contaminated "evidence" was the slim speclation the prosecutor used to convict an innocent woman.

I recently sent a letter to Dumanis outlining that I had learned the Sheriff's crime lab was involved in "switching" blood samples and attributing them to the wrong people, and keeping a lab witness on the public payroll who testifies falsely. Click HERE for article. And after that, San Diego attorney Mike Fremont caught a San Diego Police Department crime lab criminalist lying in the witness stand. A complaint to Dumanis yielded no action. Click HERE for article.

Shame on the San Diego District ttorney's Office.

By Dana Littlefield
STAFF WRITER

April 18, 2008

Cynthia Sommer, accused of fatally poisoning her Miramar Marine husband with arsenic, spent two years and four months behind bars. Yesterday, the 34-year-old mother of four walked out of the Las Colinas jail a free woman, after prosecutors dropped the murder case against her.

Prosecutors said they now have reasonable doubt that Sgt. Todd Sommer was poisoned, based on conclusions reached by a new set of toxicology experts.

San Diego Superior Court Judge John Einhorn granted the prosecutors' motion to dismiss “without prejudice,” meaning they have the option to refile charges later.

Cynthia Sommer's defense lawyer has said he plans to request a dismissal with prejudice.

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said at a news conference yesterday that her office acted appropriately, based on available evidence, when it charged Sommer with murder in March 2006 and tried her in January 2007. Sommer was arrested in Palm Beach County, Fla., in November 2005.

Prosecutors sought more forensic testing when defense attorneys raised questions about the evidence during and after the trial. Testing on other tissue samples from Todd Sommer revealed no arsenic.

Cynthia Sommer talked to her family on the phone yesterday after she was released from Las Colinas jail in Santee. Jacky Scott of Welcome Home Ministry was with her.
“Today justice was done,” Dumanis said. “This is how the system is supposed to work.

“As soon as we had the information that pointed to reasonable doubt, we brought this case this afternoon to get the matter dismissed,” she said, adding that prosecutors acted quickly “so that Sommer didn't spend any additional time in custody.”

Defense lawyer Allen Bloom was unconvinced.

“No one should say that this system worked,” he said. “This dismissal wasn't because of the prosecution's efforts; it was done because the defense demanded it.”

Todd Sommer, 23, died Feb. 18, 2002, after collapsing at the couple's home at the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. Doctors first determined he died of natural causes, but tests later revealed high levels of arsenic in his liver and kidneys.

Witnesses testified during the trial that Cynthia Sommer slept with other men, partied heavily and used some of her husband's life insurance money to buy breast implants shortly after he died.

Prosecutor Laura Gunn argued that Sommer's behavior indicated she was “celebrating” rather than mourning.

On Jan. 30, 2007, a jury convicted her of first-degree murder and allegations of murder by poison and for financial gain. She faced a life sentence.

In December, a judge granted Sommer's request for a new trial, saying her former attorney, Robert Udell, made several mistakes that might have prejudiced jurors. Udell admitted he made some errors.

Bloom said jurors never should have heard about Sommer's partying and sexual behavior. He also said early tests on Todd Sommer's tissues were flawed and likely contaminated.

According to court documents, prosecutors learned in March that several of Todd Sommer's tissue samples had been stored at San Diego Naval Medical Center in Balboa Park. They were tested this month at a lab in Quebec, which found no arsenic.

Dr. Jean-Philippe Weber, the Quebec lab's former director, prepared a report stating that the previous test results were “physiologically improbable” and that contamination was possible.

Yesterday, Bloom reaffirmed his contention that Todd Sommer died of natural causes, as doctors determined initially.

“Young people and healthy people die from sudden cardiac arrest in our country every year,” Bloom said. “Todd Sommer was sadly was one of those people. I know he didn't die because of Cynthia Sommer.

The Presentence Report used as relevant conduct all the sales, and found that the defendant was a career offender. This bothered the court, who expressed concern about relevant conduct, and thought that the career offender determination was pumped up.

The government objected, and the court groused that "...You know what you can do with that. Take it to the appellate court...." Well, the government did.

The 9th Circuit agreed that the court, under the guidelines, had to consider the relevant conduct, and that Gall requires an accurate guideline calculation. The 9th Circuit (nudge, nudge) indicated (wink, wink) that the district court under Gall/Kimbrough could use all the factors and could be cognizant of the crack/powder disparity.

U.S. v. Grissom, No. 06-10688 (4-15-08).

A victim's "bare, unverified" statement of losses is sufficient to sustain an order for direct restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f). This court disagrees with People v. Vournazos (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 948.

The defendant's testimony refuting amounts did not have to be believed.

People v. Medrano (C.A. 3rd, 4/18/08, C056068) 08 C.D.O.S.

Imposition of the upper term by the sentencing judge based on a defendant's probationary status did not violate Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court accepted an appeal on Monday that could help define the boundaries of prosecutorial immunity in an era when the officials who head big prosecutors’ offices function as managers as much as they act as hands-on lawyers.

Under longstanding legal doctrine, prosecutors are absolutely immune for their judgments in handling cases, even if a faulty judgment results in a wrongful conviction.

In this instance, a man wrongfully convicted of murder on the basis of false testimony by a jailhouse informant sued the top two officials of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office on the ground that they had failed to set up a proper management system that could have flagged the problematic nature of the informant’s testimony.

In rejecting the officials’ claim of absolute prosecutorial immunity, the federal appeals court in San Francisco held that the suit was related not to the men’s role as prosecutors, but as office managers.

The officials’ Supreme Court appeal argues that this decision circumvented a rule that has shielded prosecutors from second guessing by the courts and warns that it would “encourage a flood of lawsuits” that would make it difficult for prosecutors to do their work.

The plaintiff, Thomas L. Goldstein, served 24 years in prison before the Federal District Court in Los Angeles granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 2005 he filed a civil rights suit seeking damages from John K. Van de Kamp, who at the time of his trial in 1980 was the Los Angeles district attorney, and Curt Livesay, who was Mr. Van de Kamp’s chief deputy.

The suit said that because of inadequate record keeping, the deputy prosecutors who handled the case were unaware that their star witness, a jailhouse informant, Edward Floyd Fink, not only falsely testified that Mr. Goldstein confessed to him, but also lied when he said on the stand that he was not receiving, and had never received, any benefits for testifying on behalf of the state.

In fact, Mr. Fink had been an informant for the Long Beach for years and had in turn received reductions in his prison sentence for testifying in earlier trials, as well as in Mr. Goldstein’s case.

Prosecutors are required to inform the defense of information that could serve to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, and the prosecutors would have had to turn over the information on Mr. Fink to Mr. Goldstein’s lawyers, had they known about it.

Mr. Goldstein’s suit argues that under a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Giglio v. United States, a prosecutor’s office has an affirmative obligation to maintain a record-keeping system ensuring that all lawyers in the office have access to information about promises to witnesses.

Mr. Van de Kamp and Mr. Livesay argued unsuccessfully in the lower federal courts that the suit should be dismissed on the basis of absolute prosecutorial immunity. In their Supreme Court appeal, Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, No. 07-854, they argue that “the dissemination of exculpatory information to the defense” is a “core prosecutorial function,” distinct from administrative functions like “hiring procedures and compensation schedules.” The lower courts were mistaken in viewing their failure to have a proper record-keeping system as administrative rather than prosecutorial, they maintain.

Mr. Goldstein’s lawyer argues that “entering information into and retrieving information from a data-indexing system” are “transparently administrative activities” and that no “floodgates” will open, because most prosecutors’ offices, including Los Angeles, now have the systems to avoid future mistakes.