Pitchess motions
Category > Pitchess motions
Defendant was not required to allege specific misconduct committed by the deputy in the case in order to trigger in camera review of the existing Pitchess/Brady material.Defendant charged with drug offenses moved for in camera review and pretrial disclosure of potential impeachment material the district attorney informed him was contained in the personnel file of the arresting deputy who was expected to testify at defendant’s trial. Nothing more was required to trigger the trial court’s in camera review, and defendant was not required to allege specific misconduct committed by the deputy in that case.id: 25408
Trial court reviewing Pitchess materials must personally examine the produced records.A trial court conducting an in camera review of police officer personnel records must examine the produced records itself and may not rely on the custodian’s assessment of the discoverability of information contained in the records.id: 23177
Defendant who filed a Pitchess motion showed good cause for discovery of complaints of dishonesty of some arresting officers where his defense was that he did not know his pursuers were police officers and they lied while trying to cover up for one another’s transgressions. Defendant charged with provocative act murder showed good cause for discovery of complaints of dishonesty and false reporting in the arresting officers’ personnel records. Defendant claimed the officers wearing plain clothes lied about identifying themselves and he thought he was under attack and tried to escape. Past acts of dishonesty by the officers would impeach their credibility at trial. Defendant did not show good cause for discovery of complaints of excessive force by the officers.id: 23176
Statements of crime witnesses are discoverable when obtained as a result of a Pitchess motion.Statements of witnesses to the crime with which the defendant is charged are not immune from discovery because they were obtained as a result of an internal affairs investigation and placed in an officer’s personnel file. A defendant may obtain the statements on a showing of good cause made in a motion brought pursuant to, and not precluded under, Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045.id: 22722
Before a retrial, the trial court may order the production of Pitchess materials relating to events that occurred after the original trial.If a defendant obtains a new trial by way of appellate or habeas corpus relief, the trial court has the discretion to order the discovery of peace officer records related to events that occurred after the date of the original conviction.id: 22321
The trial court erred in refusing an in camera review of Pitchess material where defendant was charged with murder and the proposed defense was pure or imperfect self-defense.Defendant was charged with murder of a former probation officer. The trial court erred in refusing to conduct an in camera review of material contained in the victim’s personnel file. There was a logical link between the charged murder and the proposed defenses - pure or imperfect self defense. Defendant satisfied the low threshold required to obtain an in camera review of Pitchess material.id: 22040
The trial court prejudicially erred by failing to administer the oath to the custodian of records at a Pitchess hearing.The trial court’s failure to place the custodian of records under oath before he testified at the Pitchess hearing required a conditional reversal of the judgment.id: 22003
The trial court erred by denying the Pitchess motion without an in camera inspection where counsel's declaration showed the officer's truthfulness was material to the case.Defendant, who was charged with attempted possession of drugs, filed a Pitchess motion. On information and belief, defense counsel's declaration asserted the officer untruthfully claimed defendant asked to purchase "chiva" (slang for heroin). The motion sought to discover the officer's personnel records pertaining to honesty and false police reports. The declaration was sufficient to show the officer's truthfulness was material to the case pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043. The trial court erred in summarily denying the Pitchess motion without the required in camera inspection.id: 17858
Defendant’s claim in his Pitchess declaration that reports were falsified was sufficient to require in camera review of the officer’s personnel files. Defendant was charged with resisting arrest and vandalism. He filed a Pitchess motion seeking discovery from the personnel files of the four officers involved in the arrest. In his declaration, he claimed there was police misconduct which if believed would have supported a defense to the charges. This was sufficient to satisfy the relatively low threshold for an in camera review of the files. The trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion.id: 20388
The statutory Pitchess procedure did not prohibit defendant from filing his supporting declaration under seal.A defendant may file a sealed affidavit in support of his Pitchess motion to avoid revealing privileged material to the prosecution and police. The trial court erred by refusing to consider the declaration unless a full copy was provided to the
city.id: 19134
A Pitchess declaration may be filed under seal and the declaration must be redacted before being served on the city attorney.A trial court may permit a defendant to file a Pitchess motion seeking discovery of a law enforcement officer's records,
under seal if the court determines it is necessary. In order to protect attorney-client and work product materials, a declaration filed under seal must be redacted before being served on the city attorney.id: 19793
Remand for a new Pitchess hearing was necessary to allow the trial court to review the potentially discoverable records. Defendant filed a Pitchess motion seeking complaints about the officers involved in the case. There was no indication that the trial court actually reviewed the list the city attorney submitted in support of the custodian of record's decision to produce no records for the court's review. Moreover, that list was not made part of the appellate record. The matter was remanded for a new Pitchess hearing.id: 19474
Responding to Pitchess request with name and contact information only was insufficient where defendant needed the complainant's statements to effectively prepare for trial.Defendant who was charged with resisting arrest, filed a Pitchess motion. He was provided the name of a deputy sheriff who had filed a complaint of "workplace violence" against one of the sheriffs who had arrested defendant. When contacted by the defense investigator, the complaining deputy refused to discuss the incident that had formed the basis of the complaint. The defense then sought discovery of the complainant's statement about the incident. Defendant needed the statement to investigate the matter before trial, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request.id: 17836
Trial court abused its discretion in failing to find materiality and good cause under the hybrid Pitchess/Brady motion where counsel alleged on "information and belief" that the witness had previously fabricated facts as a police officer.Defendant was accused of aggravated assault using his car. His defense was that he was not present, but the prosecution intended to present the testimony of a former Calexico City Police Officer who claimed defendant admitted to being there. The defense filed a hybrid Pitchess/Brady motion seeking evidence of the witness' previous misconduct and material fabrications while on the Calexico Police Department. The request was based on counsel's "information and belief" following information he received from the witness's prior colleagues on the police department. The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion without conducting an in camera hearing to examine the "counseling memos" which would have discredited the witness. The declaration based on counsel's information and belief met the good cause showing under the Pitchess and Brady materiality standards.id: 17574
To obtain in-chambers review of Pitchess materials a defendant need only show the scenario of alleged officer misconduct could or might have occurred.Good cause for the discovery of Pitchess materials exists where the defendant shows materiality to the subject matter of the pending litigation, and a reasonable belief that the agency has the type of information sought. To obtain in-chambers review of documents or information in the officer's personnel file that is potentially relevant to the claimed misconduct, a defendant need only demonstrate that the scenario of alleged officer misconduct could or might have occurred.id: 18581
Affiant's personal knowledge is not required for a showing of good cause for a Pitchess motion.A showing of good cause for discovery of peace officer personnel records, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (b) does not require an affidavit based on the affiant's personal knowledge of the averment's set forth therein, but may instead by based on a reasonable belief that the governmental agency has the type of information sought.id: 11834
Juvenile is entitled to discovery of the outcome of disciplinary proceedings stemming from an earlier citizen's complaint filed against an officer when relevant to a wardship proceeding.A juvenile is entitled to discovery of the outcome of disciplinary proceedings stemming from an earlier citizen's complaint filed against an arresting officer when the information is relevant to a wardship proceeding. Contrary to the minor's claim, Evidence Code section 1045, subd. (b)(2), which excludes from disclosure the conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint, does apply in juvenile as well as adult proceedings. However, the statutory scheme reveals a legislative intent to allow disclosure of the outcome of an investigation, i.e., the discipline imposed, without also requiring disclosure of how or why the investigating body reached that outcome.id: 11864
Trial court abused its discretion in summarily denying the Pitchess motion where defendant alleged the drugs were placed on him by the officer to cover up for the excessive force pursuant to the officer's pattern.Defendant was charged with drug possession. Prior to trial he moved for personnel records of the arresting officer pertaining to force after asserting the drugs were placed on him by the officer's use of excessive force and that the officer had a pattern of fabricating probable cause in dope cases. Defendant demonstrated good cause for the requested discovery and the court abused its discretion in summarily denying the discovery motion. The trial court should have conducted an in camera hearing to determine the presence of any discoverable material in the officer's personnel file.id: 15805
Pitchess motions are not limited to issues of officer violence and may be raised on the issue of including false information in police reports.Defendant was charged with evasion of arrest in a motor vehicle. He filed a discovery motion under <i>Pitchess v. Superior Court</i> (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, claiming the police report contained material misstatements. Contrary to the prosecutor's claim, <i>Pitchess</i> motions are not limited to issues of officer violence. Defendant demonstrated a reasonable belief that the agency had the type of information he sought. Moreover, in light of his allegation it became relevant whether the officers have been accused of falsifying reports in the past. The trial court erred in failing to hold an in camera review. The case was remanded for a hearing on the motion. If the defendant presents relevant, admissible information, the trial court will determine whether there is reasonable probability that had the evidence been admitted, there would have been a different outcome.id: 15801
Pitchess request may include information regarding the officer's prior law enforcement history. Nothing in the statutory scheme which codified the principles set forth in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3rd 531, precluded disclosure of the length of the officer's present employment or potentially relevant facts relating to law enforcement employment other than the officer's current job.id: 16898
Prosecutor has no right to receive Pitchess materials.A prosecutor is entitled to notice of the date and place of a Pitchess hearing so that he or she can assist the trial court if it has any questions regarding discovery, but has no right to concurrently receive materials disclosed to the defense.id: 17218
Pitchess discovery is appropriate when a defendant seeks information to assist in a motion to suppress.Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance. He moved for discovery of police officer personnel files of the arresting officers pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043. His basic claim was that the officers lied in their police reports. He challenged the officer's account of the detention, search and manner in which the confession was obtained by providing his own version of the events. This made the officer's truthfulness material to the issues in the case. Consequently, defendant demonstrated good cause for the discovery of other similar complaints against the officers. Moreover, contrary to the court's conclusion, Pitchess discovery is appropriate when a defendant seeks information to assist in a motion to suppress.id: 17301
Updated 2/7/2024Defendant was not entitled to the arresting officer’s personnel file in a case that had nothing to do with his credibility.The minor was apprehended shortly after a nearby burglary while hiding in a cardboard box. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Pitchess motion for discovery of the arresting officer’s personnel file. The case did not involve the officer’s credibility and a review of the officer’s file was unnecessary.id: 27147
A prosecutor who is informed by police that peace officer records may contain exculpatory evidence meets the Brady obligation by delivering that information to the defense.The police department notified the district attorney that it had confidential records of two police officers who were potential witnesses that might contain exculpatory information. In that case, the prosecution may not simply examine the records to determine whether there is exculpatory evidence, but must follow the procedures established for Pitchess motions. Moreover, the prosecution fulfills its Brady obligation if it informs the defense that the specified records might contain exculpatory information.id: 24176
The trial court did not err by refusing to order the prosecution to run the rap sheet of a police officer witness.The prosecutor has a duty under Brady v. Maryland to learn of and disclose material impeachment information about police officer witnesses within the prosecution’s constructive possession, but the prosecution cannot be forced to comply with its Brady duty to investigate in a particular manner. The trial court did not err by refusing to order the prosecution to run an officer’s rap sheet pursuant to Brady. And the court didn’t err by denying the Pitchess motion seeking the officer’s rap sheet and birth date where the rap sheet was not in the officer’s personnel file. Neither was the prosecution required to run the rap sheet under the general discovery provisions.id: 23853
The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Pitchess motion absent any facts linking his broad requests to the subject matter of the case.The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Pitchess motion (seeking discovery of police officer records) that requested broad categories of materials relating to the use of excessive force, planting evidence and falsifying records. Nothing in defense counsel’s declaration attempted to set forth facts linking those requests to the subject matter of the litigation.id: 23983
Absence of statement from Pitchess custodian addressing other potential missing documents did not render record inaccurate.Defendant argued the trial court erred by failing to make an adequate record before denying the Pitchess motion because it neglected to require that the custodian specify what, if any, documents in the personnel file were deemed nonresponsive to the motion and not submitted to the court. However, the record was not inadequate and there was no error.id: 22590
Appellate counsel has a duty to ensure that the record is perfected where a Pitchess claim is raised. Defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s request for discovery of the arresting officer’s personnel file. The Court of Appeal reviewed the materials and rejected the claim without comment. However, the court published the opinion to remind appellate counsel to ensure the record is perfected in cases in which a Pitchess claim is raised. California Rules of Court, rule 8.328(c) requires that appellate counsel apply to the superior court for an order that the record include such materials.id: 22102
Defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested Pitchess materials where he did not present a factual scenario contrary to the one described by the officer.The trial court did not err in finding defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the court to conduct an in camera review of the arresting officer’s personnel files. Defendant was charged with criminal threats that one of the officer’s testified that he heard over the “loudspeaker” on the victim’s phone. But defendant failed to present a factual account that was contrary to that testimony, and therefore failed to show good cause under Pitchess. id: 21402
Defendant is not entitled to Pitchess discovery of prior complaints of lies against the arresting officer where defendant’s version of events in his case are similar to officer’s.Where a defendant’s undisputed extrajudicial statements are reasonably consistent with the officer’s description of the crime, discovery (through a Pitchess motion) of any complaint of prior fabrication by the officer is foreclosed because the defendant has impliedly acknowledged that the officer was truthful in this case. id: 21135
Where a trial court has erroneously failed to review Pitchess material and the court later determines the personnel files contained discoverable information, reversal is required only if the defendant demonstrates a reasonable probability of a better result had the evidence been disclosed.The Court of Appeal found the trial court erred in failing to review the requested Pitchess records in camera and the matter was remanded to permit the trial court to permit the review. The appellate court also ordered that if the trial court found information that should have been disclosed defendant should then be allowed to demonstrate prejudice. Defendant argued that if the trial court found such information, the error should be considered reversible per se or the judgment should be reviewed unless the prosecutor can show it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the trial court error is not reversible per se, and it is reversible only if there is a reasonable probability of a different result had the information been disclosed.id: 20917
The defendant may not seek Pitchess discovery for use in a preliminary hearing. Defendant sought Pitchess discovery from the police department for use during his preliminary hearing on charges of resisting arrest and making threats. However, a defendant may not seek Pitchess discovery for use in a preliminary hearing.id: 20735
The trial court did not err in denying the Pitchess request for the DEA agent’s personnel files where the evidence showed the officer did not mistreat defendant. Defendant filed a Pitchess motion seeking discovery of personnel files of a DEA agent who was present when defendant was arrested in Mexico. However, the trial court did not err in denying the motion. Defendant’s confession had already been determined to be voluntary. Moreover, it had already been established that while the DEA agent was present in Mexico, he did not participate in the arrest and asked the Mexican officials to treat defendant well and not question him, and that he was not abused by officials in Mexico. id: 20536
If defense counsel gets Pitchess materials, and in a later case files a Pitchess motion and discovers the same complainant information - counsel may refer to the derivative information obtained during the earlier follow-up investigation without violating the Evidence Code section 1045(e) protective order.Derivative information, developed by independent investigation after Pitchess disclosure in an earlier case, is not generally subject to the statutorily required protective order when a subsequent defendant files his or her own Pitchess motion and receives the name of the same complainant to which the derivative information pertains.id: 19966
In a posttrial Pitchess motion, requested records must be material to that litigation rather than the defense to the underlying conviction.Defendant argued the trial court applied the wrong standard to his posttrial Pitchess motion. He claimed the court erred by
requiring him to show the requested records were material to his new trial motion. Rather, he argued he only needed to show the records were material to his defense of the underlying conviction. However, after defendant was convicted, the "pending litigation" to which the requested records had to be material was his new trial motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.id: 19678
Where the officers had probable cause to detain and search defendants based on uncontested facts, the materials sought in defendant's Pitchess motion were irrelevant to the defense. Defendant filed a Pitchess motion seeking discovery of information concerning complaints against the arresting officers regarding false statements in their police reports or other evidence of dishonesty. Defendant claimed the information could be relevant to this suppression motion challenging the detention and search. However, the trial court properly found defendant did not make a sufficient showing of materiality to require an in camera review of the requested records.id: 19699
Pre-habeas corpus Pitchess motion was properly denied where the decision on the direct appeal rendered the requested information immaterial. Penal Code section 1054.9 authorizes a pre-habeas corpus motion for discovery of peace officer records (Pitchess motion). A criminal defendant who makes such a motion without having made one during the original prosecution must show that the records are material to the habeas claims proposed and that the claims are cognizable on habeas corpus. Defendant's request was rejected where the decision in the direct appeal made the requested discovery immaterial and because the proposed
claims were not cognizable since they were raised in the appeal.id: 19337
Defendant's claim in his Pitchess motion that the police fabricated the entire incident, without providing further detail, was not a "plausible" showing requiring in camera review of the personnel records.The trial court did not err in denying defendant's Pitchess motion without conducting an in camera review of the police personnel records. While in camera review is required upon any "plausible" showing, defendant did not satisfy this low threshold. Defendant did not provide an alternative version of the facts or his actions prior to arrest, and did not address the facts in the police report. Essentially, he claimed
the entire incident was fabricated, and that the officers conspired to it in advance. While this was possible it was not "plausible" for the present purposes.id: 19182
Allegations by a defendant which merely contradict the statements of civilian witnesses are not sufficient to establish good cause for the discovery of the Pitchess materials.Defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his Pitchess motion without conducting an in-camera review of the officer's personnel files. However, allegations by a defendant which merely contradict the statements of civilian witnesses are not sufficient to establish good cause for discovery of information relevant to dishonesty in officers' personnel files. Moreover, there was no good cause for discovery of the files in the present case where defendant was identified and implicated by civilian witness rather than the officers.id: 18711
Individual officers who are the subject of a Pitchess motion may review the information released to the defense.Defendant sought to prevent the sheriff's department from providing to witnesses information ordered disclosed to the defense by the court following a Pitchess motion. The deputies, who were the subjects of the motion, sought to obtain all of the information released to the defense. The court found a separate Pitchess motion was not required and a limited release to an individual of information contained in his own file did not disturb the balance between the right to a fair trial and the officer's right to privacy.id: 18678
Following a Pitchess motion, the court's order that the sheriff's department produce the internal affairs report was erroneous since it failed to redact the investigating officer's analysis.Petitioner filed a Pitchess motion in connection with his civil lawsuit alleging excessive use of force by a deputy sheriff while defendant was in jail. The court ordered the sheriff's department to disclose its investigation of the incident underlying the civil complaint. However, the court erred in ordering the internal affairs report produced without first redacting the portions of the report reflecting the investigating officer's analysis and conclusion. Ordering disclosure of the remainder of the report was not erroneous.
id: 17837
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Pitchess motion which sought discovery of records of two guards who were not involved in the search and failed to allege specific facts.The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's Pitchess motion seeking discovery of personnel records of two correctional officers. Since the court found no good cause for the discovery, an in camera review of the records was unnecessary. Neither of the officers named in the motion were involved in the search which led to the discovery of the drugs. Also, defendant's declaration made general allegations of misconduct without alleging specific facts, and failed to establish the necessary specific factual scenario establishing a plausible factual foundation to justify discovery of the requested records.id: 17716
Pitchess procedures do not run afoul of the principles expressed in Brady v. Maryland.Defendant argued the statutory Pitchess framework, as applied in criminal cases, conflicts with the principles expressed in Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, in violation of his due process rights. However, contrary to defendant's claim, the Pitchess procedures do not impermissibly interfere with the prosecutor's duty to ascertain and disclose material, exculpatory evidence to the defense, and do not improperly place upon defendant the burden of establishing good cause for Brady disclosure.id: 17612
Prosecutor had no constitutional obligation to disclose complaints about police officer misconduct where the only evidence of such misconduct was defense testimony at an unrelated trial. Defendant argued the prosecution had a constitutional duty to discover and disclose to the defense two citizen complaints against a detective that could have been used to impeach his rebuttal testimony that defendant admitted gang membership before being booked. Both complaints consisted of defense testimony, given at other criminal trials, alleging the detective had fabricated evidence of cocaine possession. However, the prosecutor had no constitutional obligation to disclose complaints about police officer misconduct where the only evidence of such misconduct was defense testimony at an unrelated criminal trial.id: 17324
Protective order under section 1045(e) limits use of Pitchess material to the proceeding in which the discovery is sought.The protective order required by Evidence Code section 1045, subd.(e), "that the records disclosed or discovered may not be used for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law," limits the use of Pitchess discovery to the proceeding in which the discovery was sought.id: 17216
Trial court erred by ordering disclosure to the defense of a 10 year-old citizen complaint against one of the arresting officers.The arresting officer's veracity was called into question by a 1990 finding that he failed to report a fellow officer's use of mace, after denying the incident had occurred. Because the 10 year-old complaint was not material evidence under the Brady standard, and is not discoverable under California's Pitchess discovery scheme as it is more than 5 years old (Evidence Code section 1045, subd.(b)(1)), the trial court's order directing the police to disclose to the defense information about the macing incident was improper.id: 16997
Trial court erred by refusing to allow the City Attorney to review the affidavit filed in support of the Pitchess motion.The trial court erred by refusing to allow the City Attorney to review the affidavit filed in support of the Pitchess motion. Although a criminal defendant's right to confidentiality must be protected, in proceedings held pursuant to Evidence Code section 1043 the question should be, whenever possible, tested by the adversary process. In the present case, the City Attorney's Office is not the prosecutor. Under these circumstances, defendant's rights will be protected and the City Attorney's right to contest the affidavit submitted in support of the Pitchess motion will be accommodated by allowing the City Attorney to review the affidavit under a protective court order.id: 16694
Court of Appeal erred in suggesting the custodian of records must always produce the entire personnel file in response to a Pitchess motion.Following defendant's conviction for assault on a peace officer, the Court of Appeal found the appellate record did not contain the Pitchess records the trial court examined so it ordered the police department to submit the entire personnel file to the appellate court. The Court found the department had previously failed to provide the entire file to the trial court, reversed the conviction and remanded for a new Pitchess hearing with the complete personnel file. However, the Court of Appeal erred to the extent it suggested the custodian of records must, in response to a Pitchess motion, produce the entire personnel file of the officer in question. In light of evidence suggesting the custodian of records failed to provide the appellate court with those records it supplied the trial court, the Court of Appeal should have acted to augment the record by remanding the case to the trial court to allow the court to settle the record to determine which documents had been examined. The absence of any potentially relevant evidence in the officer's personnel file justified the reinstatement of the conviction.id: 16613
Since the defendant was not a current peace officer, section 832.7, which exempts the D.A. from complying with section 1043 in certain circumstances, did not apply.Defendant who was charged with murder had previously been employed for 18 years as a police officer and an arson investigator. However, at the time of the charged murder he was employed as a Fire Captain in a non-peace officer capacity. The prosecution argued the court exceeded its jurisdiction in denying discovery of defendant's peace officer personnel records. Penal Code section 832.7 expressly exempts the D.A. from compliance with the Evidence Code section 1043 requirements from discovery of peace officer personnel records. However, the section 832.7 exemption applies only to investigations concerning the conduct of a peace officer. Since defendant was not a police officer at the time of the killing, the exemption did not apply.id: 15803
Factual showing for Pitchess motion must contain specifics of the allegedly improper police misconduct.The city argued the trial court erred in granting the <i>Pitchess</i> motion for personnel records of certain police officers. The court erred by releasing the records because defendant failed to make a showing of "good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought" (under Evidence Code section 1043, subdivision (b)(3)) in that he failed to provide a "specific factual scenario" establishing a "plausible factual foundation" for his allegations of police misconduct. Without some notice of the specifics of the allegedly improper police conduct, the trial court could not determine the relevance of the requested materials.id: 15799
Pitchess motion was properly denied once prosecutor dismissed the count of resisting arrest and the only remaining count was for evasion of arrest in a motor vehicle.Defendant was charged with evading arrest in a vehicle, as well as the subsequent acts of resisting arrest. He filed a discovery motion under <i>Pitchess v. Superior Court</i> (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, claiming that the officer used excessive force. However, the excessive force claim became irrelevant when the prosecutor dismissed the resisting arrest count. Defendant failed to show how a history of excessive force had any bearing on the issue of evasion of arrest in a motor vehicle.id: 15800
Court erred in ordering the district attorney to run criminal record checks on police officers rather than complying with the Pitchess process.The trial court abused its discretion when it ordered the police department to disclose the birth dates of three officers to the Orange County District Attorney for the purpose of running criminal records checks. The court should have required the defense to comply with the <i>Pitchess</i> process. (<i>Pitchess v. Superior Court</i> (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.id: 14974
Defendant did not establish good cause for Pitchess motion seeking evidence of falsifying time cards and police reports by stating the officers would likely lie about the issue of their fellow officers' use of excessive force in arresting defendant.Defendant filed a <i>Pitchess</i> motion seeking discovery of personnel records of the two highway patrol officers who arrested defendant. As to the first officer, the defendant sought evidence of irregularities relating to time cards. As to the second officer, defendant sought records showing previous problems with his police reports. The defense had previously filed a similar motion alleging that evidence of the officers' dishonesty would be probative as to their credibility in the present case. The trial court erred in granting the <i>Pitchess</i> motion because the defendant failed to show good cause in compliance with Evidence Code section 1043. The unsupported allegation by defendant that officer credibility is relevant because all officers are likely to lie about their fellow officers use of excessive force was insufficient to show good cause.id: 14975
Police department's destruction of officers' personnel records after a denial of a motion to discover the records did not require sanctions where the motion was improperly denied and the records were needed to defend at the retrial of the capital case.Before defendant's first capital trial he moved for discovery of police officer's personnel records under <i>Pitches v. Superior Court</i> (1974) 11 Cal.3d 532, to show his confession had been coerced through excessive force by officers. The motion erroneously was denied and the judgment (death sentence) was subsequently reversed. The trial court then granted the motion to discover the records but the files had been purged. Defendant argued the records were destroyed to conceal information relevant to his claim of coercion. He moved to dismiss the information as a sanction. However, evidence supported the trial court's ruling the records were not destroyed in bad faith. Moreover, no sanction was required where the records were destroyed according to Government Code provisions, and the police department did not know the records would be useful after the motion to discover them had earlier been denied.id: 11866
Court did not err in denying Pitchess material regarding incidents that occurred after the prosecution of the defendant for the crime at issue.The prosecutor sought to use in aggravation the facts, circumstances, and felony conviction of a battery committed by defendant on a peace officer in 1975. Defendant filed a <U>Pitchess</U> motion seeking discovery of citizen complaints regarding the officers in question. The court allowed discovery regarding incidents prior to 1975. Defendant argued the court erred in denying discovery of citizen complaints from 1975 to 1984. However, the statutory provisions provide no authority for use, in criminal trials of evidence of character based on specific instances of conduct that occurred <U>after</U> the prosecution of the defendant for the crime at issue.id: 11840
Court's failure to reveal to defense the existence of a complaint against the officer/witness regarding the filing of a false report was not prejudicial.Defendant moved to discover complaints against the officer relating to the use of deadly force. The court reviewed the file in camera and stated there was no complaint involving violence. Defense counsel asked if there was a complaint reflecting on the officer's veracity. The court apparently misunderstood the question and responded that there were no other shooting incidents. Defendant later discovered that the file included a complaint that the officer filed a false and misleading report. However, defendant failed to show the complaint would have seriously undermined the officer's description of the facts and therefore any error was harmless.id: 11848
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245