Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99730352/Douglas-v-Cooley
Timestamp: 2015-08-30 09:02:18
Document Index: 518861773

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1054', '§ 1054', '§ 1054', '§\n1054', '§ 832', '§ 832', '§ 832', '§ 1043']

Douglas v. Cooley UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksScribd SelectsHand-picked favorites from our editorsScribd Selects AudioHand-picked favoritesfrom our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop CategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComicsComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultTop Audiobook CategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung Adult
P. 1Douglas v. Cooley Douglas v. Cooley Ratings: (0)|Views: 772|Likes: 0Published by lisabrennerMore info:Published by: lisabrenner on Jul 10, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/99730352/Douglas-v-Cooley07/03/2015pdftextoriginal VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ANDCOMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728MARK ROSENBAUM, SBN 59940PETER ELIASBERG, SBN 189110MARISOL ORIHUELA, SBN 261375DAVID SAPP, SBN 264464ACLU Foundation of Southern California1313 West Eighth StreetLos Angeles, California 90017Telephone: (213) 977-5220Facsimile: (213) 977-5297BENJAMIN N. GLUCK, SBN 203997BENJAMIN D. LICHTMAN, SBN 241135Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks &Lincenberg, PC1875 Century Park E 23FLLos Angeles, California 90067Telephone: (310) 201-2100Facsimile: (310) 201-2110CHARLES J. OGLETREE
(Pro hac vice application forthcoming)
Harvard Law School*1563 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, Massachusetts 02138Telephone: (617) 495-5097Facsimile: (617) 496-3936*For identification purposes only
Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff MICHAEL J. BRENNAN, SBN 40436Post-Conviction Justice ProjectUSC Law School*699 Exposition BoulevardLos Angeles, California 90089-0071Telephone: (213) 740-2527Facsimile: (213) 740-5502
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
JEFFREY DOUGLAS,Petitioner/Plaintiff,v.STEVE COOLEY, in his official capacity as LosAngeles County District Attorney; LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE;
LEROY BACA, in his official capacity as Los AngelesCounty Sheriff; and LOS ANGELES COUNTY
,Respondents/Defendants.CASE NO.
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITOF MANDATE ANDCOMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVEAND DECLARATORY RELIEF
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ANDCOMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728The following allegations are based on information and belief, unless otherwise specified:
A trial is a search for truth, not a game of hide and seek. This principle is never more
true than in criminal trials, where “the People of The State of California” are deciding whether to takeaway a citizen’s liberty. To ensure that criminal trials will be reliable, truth
-seeking procedures, thestatutes governing criminal trials in California include, among others, two provisions requiring thedisclosure of evidence to the defense. These laws implement constitutional protections recognized bythe United States and California Supreme Courts as indispensible components of Due Process incriminal proceedings.2.
Hard as it may be to believe, in the face of these clear mandates, Los Angeles CountyDistrict Attorney Steve Cooley, the
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (“LADA”)
, LosAngeles County Sheriff Leroy Baca, and the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) have
enacted formal, official policies to evade the mandatory duties imposed by these laws and to violate theconstitutional and statutory rights of countless criminal defendants. By doing so, they not only floutboth their explicit statutory and constitutional duties and their inherent duties to see that justice is done,but they also undermine the reliability, fairness, and truth-seeking function of criminal trials every dayin this county.
Respondents Steve Cooley and LADA have adopted a policy regarding disclosureof exculpatory evidence (which in lay terms means evidence that helps the defendant or hurts theprosecution) that violates their duties under Penal Code § 1054.1(e) and
Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83(1963), and its progeny. Penal Code § 1054.1(e) mandates t
hat prosecutors “shall disclose” to thedefense “any exculpatory evidence.”
The California Supreme Court has held that § 1054.1(e) imposes aduty on prosecutors to disclose, pre-trial, all exculpatory evidence, without qualification.
Barnett v.Superior Court , 50 Cal. 4th 890, 901 (2010). Exculpatory evidence is typically referred to as
material, after the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that a prosecutor violates Due Process by proceedingto trial without disclosing exculpatory evidence to the defendant.
See Brady
, 373 U.S. at 86.4.
Despite §
1054.1(e)’s unequivocal mandate and the clear duty imposed by
and itsprogeny, Respondents Cooley and LADA have adopted a formal policy that: (1) prohibits the disclosure
212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728of exculpatory evidence unles
s the reviewing deputy deems it true by “clear and convincing evidence,”
(2) mandates suppression of exculpatory evidence if it is relevant to a pending administrative or criminalinvestigation, and (3) mandates suppression of exculpatory evidence if a deputy district attorneyspeculates, pre-trial, that it is unlikely to affect the verdict. Not only do these requirements that deputydistrict attorneys suppress favorable evidence lack any legal basis, but they are also expressly
Respondents Leroy Baca and LASD have an official practice of maintaininginmate complaints in a manner that directly violates Penal Code § 832.5. In response to the California
Supreme Court’s holding in
Pitchess v. Superior Court , 11 Cal. 3d 531, 535-37 (1974), that limitingdiscovery into law enforcement personnel records would raise significant Due Process problems, theCalifornia Legislature adopted a comprehensive statutory mechanism to implement the
Penal Code § 832.5(b) provides that all citizens
complaints against officers must be maintained, for five
years, “either in the peace or custodial officer’s general personnel file or in a separate file designated by
the department or agency as provided by department or agency policy, in accordance with all applicablerequirements of law.
In turn, Penal Code § 832.7 and Evidence Code § 1043 provide a system for
review and disclosure in criminal proceedings when those complaints bear on the defendant’s case.Obviously, the Rule’s disclosure
provisions, which were developed in response to nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence by the very same LASD that is a Respondent here, are moot if an agency violates
the Rule’s first element and does not properly maintain the records.
But that is exactly what Respondents Baca and LASD have done and are doing as amatter of formal policy. In the face of this unequivocal statutory mandate, an LASD representative hastestified in open court that Respondents Baca and LASD have decided that, in the case of inmates in the
Notably, LADA is the only office in California that imposes a clear-and-convincing requirement.
Indeed, other district attorney’s offices, including neighboring Ventura County, have explicitly rejectedthis aspect of LADA’s
, 11 Cal. 3d at 534, the defendant was charged with battery against four LASD deputies andsought to obtain the personnel records of the deputies to show that they had previously used excessiveforce. The California Supreme Court recognized that the personnel files of a law enforcement officercan be a critical element in many criminal cases and reversed the order quashing the subpoena.
Id . at535, 537.
More From This UserNOAA - Ocean Etiquette DocumentslisabrennerMarine Wildlife Viewing GuidelineslisabrennerCoolingCtrs-6-3-13lisabrennerESP FocusSheet Heatwave 0710lisabrennerOscar Sunday 2013 Street ClosureslisabrennerKpcc Oscar Ballot 2013lisabrennerPress Announcements _ FDA Approves First Retinal Implant for Adults With Rare Genetic Eye Diseaselisabrennerchris brown motionlisabrennerendangered whale sushi indictmentlisabrenner2013 Academy Awards, Oscar.com Official Ballotlisabrennerla county coroners report natalie woodlisabrennerFDA Safety Announcement - Sleeping Pills
[1-10-2013]lisabrenner2013 Rose Parade float trophy winners lisabrennerPressReleaseBathSaltslisabrennerLapd Los Feliz SuspectlisabrennerDouglas v. Cooley Writ.finaLlisabrennerkendrecmcdadecoronerlisabrennerkendrecmcdadecoronerlisabrenner