Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/385967821/Murgia-Compel-Discovery-Motion-Filed-July-5-2018-by-Defendant-Susan-Bassi-People-v-Bassi-Santa-Clara-County-District-Attorney-Jeff-Rosen-Deputy
Timestamp: 2019-10-20 02:40:40
Document Index: 467296973

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 166', '§ 166', '§ 148', '§ 166', '§\n7', '§\n11', '§ 166']

Murgia Compel Discovery Motion Filed July 5, 2018 by Defendant Susan Bassi: People v. Bassi - Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Deputy District Attorney Alison Filo - Defense Attorney Dmitry Stadlin - Judge John Garibaldi - Santa Clara County Superior Court Presiding Judge Patricia Lucas - Silicon Valley California - | Discovery (Law) | Prosecutor
speichernMurgia Compel Discovery Motion Filed July 5, 2018 ... für später speichern
1 DMITRY STADLIN
Attorney at Law, SBN 302361
INDORSiD~
FJUL~5 D
2 93 Devine Street
3 Tel: (408) 645-7801
Fax: (408) 645-7802 2018
4 ds@stadlinlaw.com Clerk of the Court
Superior Court of CA County of Santa Clara
5 Attorney for Defendant
8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ; Case No.: Cl 777801
i NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION
11 ; TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
Plaintiff, : MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
12 Ju ch : PURSUANT TO MURGIA v.
i MUNICIPAL COURT
- \'""'"--
: Date: _ i.._-_,_\t_,______, ~_ _
14 ~\) . . . ____ _
i Time: -------1-l-=-
SUSAN HAZLETT BASSI,
15 i Dept: -----'4 -+-j-""---
18 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT, AND TO THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the date and time specified above, or as
soon thereafter a s the matter may be heard, in the above named department of the
above entitled court, the defendant, by and through counsel, will move this Court to
order the prosecution to provide the defense with discovery, as required under Murgia v.
Municipal Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 286.
This motion will be based on the grounds set forth in the attached memorandum
of points and authorities, the papers and records on file with the court - including the
complaint, and any further evidence or argument which will be presented at the hearing
NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (MURGIA) 1
1 Dated : July 5, 2018.
6 DMITRY STADLIN
7 Attorney for Defendant
12 Ju ch
NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (MURGIA) 2
4 Susan Bassi is a journalist and has lived in California for many years. She has no
5 criminal history. The defense asserts that this prosecution is being pursued for selective
6 and discriminatory reasons, while other similarly situated persons are not being
7 prosecuted. The defense asserts that the only reason for this selective and discriminatory
8 prosecution is Ms. Bassi's coverage of local news as a journalist, and her participation in
9 local county politics.
12 Susan Bassi is charged in docket Cl 777801 with:
13 Count 1: A misdemeanor violation of California Penal Code§ 166(a)(4)-willful
14 violation of a court order- disobeying the terms of a Santa Clara County Local Court
15 Rule prohibiting the use of recording devices in a courthouse, on August 31, 2017.
16 Count 2: A misdemeanor violation of California Penal Code § 166(a)(4) - willful
17 violation of a court order - disobeying the terms of a Santa Clara County Local Court
18 Rule prohibiting the use of recording devices in a courthouse, on November 14, 2017.
19 Count 3: A misdemeanor violation of California Penal Code § 148(a)(l) - resisting,
20 delaying or obstructing an officer, on November 14, 2017.
21 Count 4: A misdemeanor violation of California Penal Code§ 166(a)(4) -willful
22 violation of a court order - disobeying the terms of a Santa Clara County Local Court
23 Rule prohibiting the use of recording devices in a courthouse, on March 19, 2018.
24 Three separate motions to compel discovery have been brought and litigated
25 during the pendency of this case.
26 In January, 2018, defense counsel for Ms. Bassi sent a discovery request to the
27 prosecutor assigned to this case, requesting Murgia discovery. (Attached as Exhibit A)
28 The prosecutor replied that the requested materials fell outside the scope of her
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO MURGIA v. MUNICIPAL COURT 3
1 discovery obligations. The defense is now requesting that the Court order that such
2 discovery be provided.
5 1. Any data kept by law enforcement agencies, including the District
6 Attorney's Office, regarding the frequency of charging a Pen. Code§
7 166(a)(4) charge for violating a Santa Clara County Local Court Rule, going
8 back 3 years.
9 2. Any data kept by law enforcement agencies, including the District
10 Attorney's Office, regarding the frequency of charging a Pen. Code §
11 166(a)(4) charge for violating a Santa Clara County Local Court Rule, since
12 August 1, 2017.
13 3. All correspondence, including but not limited to emails, texts or other
14 communications to/from the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office and the
15 Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, regarding Ms. Susan Bassi,
16 for the past three years.
19 I. THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO
SUBSTANTIATE A CLAIM OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
Yick Wo v. Hopkins makes clear that it is the province of the courts to prohibit the
unequal administration of law. (Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U.S. 356 at 373-374.) A
criminal defendant may obtain a dismissal of the criminal charges brought by the
government on the ground that such prosecution is being conducted in an arbitrary or
discriminatory manner. (Murgia v. Municipal Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 286.) The equal
protection guarantee simply prohibits prosecuting officials from purposefully and
COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO MURGIA v. MUNICIPAL COURT 4
1 intentionally singling out individuals for disparate treatment on an invidiously
2 discriminatory basis. (Id. at 297.)
3 Any criminal defendant in any criminal action may bring a Murgia motion. (Id at
4 303.) The defendant must show that he or she was arbitrarily discriminated against on
5 the basis of an unjustifiable standard. To succeed in a Murgia discovery motion, the
6 defendant must usually be a member of the group which discrimination is claimed. The
7 information requested in this motion is sought to demonstrate that the government may
8 be acting in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner in prosecuting Ms. Bassi.
9 A Murgia dismissal usually involves two motions. First, the defense makes a
10 motion to obtain discovery that would prove the government is acting in a discriminatory
11 matter. Second, assuming that the discovery establishes that the prosecution is
discriminatory, the defendant moves to have the charges dismissed.
13 A criminal defendant making a Murgia discovery motion has the burden of proof.
14 (Id at 298.) The applicable standard for discovery related to the defense of discriminatory
15 prosecution is "some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of
16 the defense, discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent." (People v. Superior Court
17 (Baez) (2000) 79 Cal.4th 177, 1189.) In other words, a defendant must make a "credible
18 showing of different treatment of similarly situated persons." (United States v.
19 Armstrong (1996) 517 U.S. 456, 470.)
20 Murgia motions are based on the United States Constitution and are not subject
21 to the discovery provisions of the Penal Code. (Murgia v. Municipal Court, supra, 15 Cal.
22 3d 286, 294.; Pen Code Section 1054(e).) Therefore, the defendant need not have
23 requested the same documents in a prior informal discovery request pursuant to Penal
24 Code section 1054.5(b). Although in this case, there was a prior informal discovery
25 request as outlined in Exhibit A to this motion.
26 The information defendant seeks is supported by Bartin v. Superior Court, (1976)
27 64 Cal. App 3d 873, 876, where defendants were provided with discovery of records
COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO MURGIA v. MUNICIPAL COURT 5
1 relating to other arrests and prosecution to support his claim that no other persons
2 where prosecuted with this offense with which he was charged.
3 B. The Evidence Supports a Prima Facie Showing of Selective Prosecution.
4 Discriminatory Effect. and Discriminatory Intent.
5 Ms. Bassi was selected for prosecution while other similarly situated persons were
6 not. The attached declarations of counsel point out that other people who have taken and
7 continue to take photographs, or record video, in the courthouse are not prosecuted. Ms.
8 Bassi, who was injured during an altercation with Sheriffs Deputies, and who is a
9 journalist and community activist, is being prosecuted. Not only is she being prosecuted,
10 but the prosecution has added new charges since the beginning of this case. Initially this
11 case was filed with only Count 1. After Ms. Bassi insisted on a speedy trial, the
prosecution added two counts. As the case was being litigated, the prosecution added
13 Count 4. No other people are being charged with violations of Pen. Code§ 166 for
14 violating a local court rule, or any specific order.
15 The Courts have recognized that discriminatory enforcement is difficult to prove
16 since evidence of it "lies buried in the consciences and files of the law enforcement
17 agencies involved." (People v. Gray (1967) 254 Cal. App. 2d 256, 266.) Here, however, the
18 instant facts present the court an unusual scenario where the court can and should
19 reasonably infer unlawful motive based on all the direct and circumstantial evidence
20 cited above. The defendant is now entitled to, and respectfully asks the Court to compel
21 discovery of the information and items necessary to fully investigate the claim.
24 The defense has made a prima facie showing that the Santa Clara County District
25 Attorney's Office, or the Sheriffs Office, has singled out Ms. Bassi for selective
26 prosecution by providing "some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential
27 elements of the defense, discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent." For these
COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO MURGIA v. MUNICIPAL COURT 6
1 reasons, this Court should compel the People to produce information and items
2 requested pursuant to Murgia.
4 Dated: July 5, 2018.
10 Attorney for Defendant
COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO MURGIA v. MUNICIPAL COURT 7
EXHIBIT A e
COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO MURGIA v. MUNICIPAL COURT 8
From: Rich, Daniella <drich1@dao.sccgov.org>
To: Dmitry Stadlin
Subject: RE: Phan, Janine shared 11 171134163 Bassi Susan Hazlett" with you.
Mr. Stadlin,
I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in court this morning and afternoon with calendars. My position is the
same- your request exceeds the scope of my discovery obligations under Penal Code section 1054.
70 W. Hedding Street -West Wing
Office: (408) 792-2930
From: Dmitry Stadlin [mailto:ds@stadlinlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 9:57 AM
To: Rich, Daniella <drichl@dao.sccgov.org>
Subject: Re: Phan, Janine shared "171134163 Bassi Susan Hazlett" with you.
Thank you for your prompt response. Could you please review the attached case (Murgia) regarding my supplemental
discovery request and let me know if, after reviewing it, you still will not discover the requested information?
93 Devine Street
Tel: (408) 645-7801
Fax: (408) 645-7802
Stadlinlaw.com
From: Rich, Daniella <drichl@dao.sccgov.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 8:31:10 AM
Thank you for your email. I have asked for the photos and Family Justice Center surveillance video to be discovered to
you. Your new discovery request for data on the frequency in which PC 166(a)(4) is charged for violating a court order
exceeds the scope of my discovery obligations under PC 1054.
From: Dmitry Stadlin [mailto:ds@stadlinlaw.com)
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 8:44 PM
Attached are the motions I filed today in court, for your convenience.
I am replying to the previous discovery request I had emailed you, so it's easier to keep track of.
Based on our in-court discussions, I am also requesting the following:
Any data kept by law enforcement (of course, including the DA's office) regarding frequency in
which Penal Code section 166(a)(4) is charged for violating any Santa Clara County Local Court
Rule and the demographics of those charged.
San Jose, CA 9511 O
From: Dmitry Stadlin
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 4:13 PM
To: 'Phan, Janine' <jphan@dao.sccgov.org>
Cc: Dan iella Rich <drichl@dao.sccgov.org>
Subject: RE : Phan, Jan ine shared "171134163 Bassi Susan Hazlett" w ith you .
Dear Ms. Phan,
I have CC'd Ms. Daniella Rich, the assigned Deputy Di strict Attorney.
Could you please also discover the fo llowing to m e:
• Copy of Video Surveillance by Tech Miramontes - Pg. 3 of 7 of Dep. Carrasco's report
• Photographs taken by Dep. Carrasco of sign - Pg. 5 of 7 of his report
• Copy of CD submitted by Dep. Carrasco into evidence locker, Evidence Item# 1
• Body Worn Camera Footage from Dep. Carrasco from 09/01 / 17 during his interview of
Fanesa Fimbrez
• Body Worn Camera Footage from Dept. Swenson during his interactions with James
Stephen and Susan Bassi on 12/09/16
93 Devin e Street
Sanjose, CA 95110
ds@stad linlaw.com
Stadli nlaw.com
From: Phan, Janine [mailto:jphan@dao.sccgov.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 11:33 AM
To: Dmitry St adlin <ds@stad linlaw.com>
Subject: Phan, Janine shared " 171134163 Bassi Susan Hazlett" with you.
Here's the document that Phan, Janine shared with you.
Thi s link only works for the direct recipients of this message.
171134163 Bassi Susan Hazlett
Microsoft Corporation, One M icrosoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
EXHIBIT B e
COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO MURGIA v. MUNICIPAL COURT 9
1 DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
3 I, DANIEL M. MAYFIELD, declare as follows:
4 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in California.
5 2. I have been practicing in Santa Clara County since 1982.
6 3. My practice is almost exclusively criminal defense.
7 4. I have personally witnessed people taking photographs or video inside Courtrooms
8 and Courthouses in this county.
9 5. I have seen this happen even after October 10, 2017.
10 6. It is hard to say how many times I have witnessed this. However, it is common for
11 people in the clerk's office to photograph files (despite the notice telling them not
12 to) and it is common for lawyers to photograph copies of "snap outs" so that the
13 client can keep a copy and the lawyer can have an electronic copy.
14 7. In addition, I believe that the definition of "Courthouse" includes the area outside
15 the doors of the courthouse and immediately adjacent to the courthouse. In this
16 area I have seen numerous individuals and news organizations take photographs.
17 8. To the best of my knowledge, none of those people were prosecuted by the District
18 Attorney's office for taking photographs in Court.
20 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
22 Executed on July 5, 2018, in San Jose, California.
24 Dq/\•el /lic 1 h·et~
25 DANIEL M. MAYFIELD
DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 1
2 I, Patrick Coughlin, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in California.
4 2. I have been practicing in Santa Clara County for 6 years.
5 3. I have personally witnessed people taking photographs or video inside Courtrooms
6 and Courthouses in this county.
7 4. I have seen this happen even after October 10, 2017.
8 5. Specifically, I have witnessed the following:
9 a. During a matter set in a felony case management courtroom, my client took
10 photographs on a date her matter was set for entry of plea. The assigned
11 courtroom Sheriffs deputy asked her to stop. Unfortunately, I had not
witnessed the initial exchange. My client did not stop. She was
13 apprehended by several deputies and remanded. While her request to be
14 released in light of a recent change of plea was denied, the judge made it
15 clear that she would not be prosecuted for any violation of an order.
16 6. Based on my personal knowledge, I know that none of those people were
17 prosecuted by the District Attorney's office for taking photographs or video in
20 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
21 Executed on July 3, 2018, in San Jose, California.
24 PATRICKC
2 I, Dmitry Stadlin, declare as follows:
4 2. I am the attorney for the defendant, Susan Bassi, in this case.
5 3. I have been practicing in Santa Clara County for three years.
6 4. I have personally witnessed people taking photographs or video inside Courtrooms
7 and Courthouses in this county.
8 a. I have seen people taking photographs in the clerk's office at both the Hall
9 of Justice and the Family Justice Center.
10 b. I have seen photographs taken at the Family Justice Center during their
11 adoption day festivities.
c. I know that Judge Manley routinely takes photographs with people that
13 graduate from his program, at the Family Justice Center.
14 5. I have seen this happen even after October 10, 2017.
15 6. I have seen Court staff take photographs inside Courtrooms-without a court
16 order allowing them to do so.
17 7. Based on my personal knowledge, I know that none of those people were
18 prosecuted by the District Attorney's office for taking photographs or video in
20 8. I have spoken with numerous other attorneys that practice in Santa Clara
21 County, and have tried to find another case where a person was being criminally
22 prosecuted for taking photographs inside a courthouse. I have not found any other
23 case -previously or currently pending-where that is the case.
24 9. I have informally asked several prosecutors at the District Attorney's office as to
25 whether they have ever known of a prosecution such as this one. They did not.
26 10.I believe Ms. Bassi is the only person that is being prosecuted for such conduct.
27 11. I am aware that Ms. Bassi is a journalist and that she reports on local events.
1 12. I am aware that Ms. Bassi has made public comments at the Board of Supervisors
2 meetings or hearings, some of which were critical of the District Attorney's Office,
3 and which were attended by a representative of, or by Jeffrey Rosen himself, the
4 elected District Attorney of this County.
5 13. Unlike Gang Experts that the prosecution routinely calls as witnesses in its cases,
6 I do not claim to be able to definitively determine the intent of any one person.
7 However, I believe that this motion and the declarations attached do show "some
8 evidence" to suggest that there is a discriminatory intent.
10 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
11 Executed on July 5, 2018, in San Jose, California.
DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 2
I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the above action. My business address
is 93 Devine Street, San Jose, California 95110.
On the date below, I personally served copies of the attached by giving a copy to the
Deputy District Attorney in Department 48.
14 And by email to:
DDA Daniela Rich
16 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
17 Executed on July 5, 2018, in San Jose, California.
COMPEL DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO MURGIA v. MUNICIPAL COURT 10
Dokumente ähnlich wie Murgia Compel Discovery Motion Filed July 5, 2018 by Defendant Susan Bassi: People v. Bassi - Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Deputy District Attorney Alison Filo - Defense Attorney Dmitry Stadlin - Judge John Garibaldi - Santa Clara County Superior Court Presiding Judge Patricia Lucas - Silicon Valley California -
Reply to Opp ToMotion to Compel 2 Redacted
9th Annual Rocky Mountain IP & Technology Institute