Source: https://steeringlaw.com/lawyers-lounge/the-scam-of-discovery-in-california-criminal-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 02:32:46
Document Index: 626022655

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1054', '§ 910', '§ 148', '§ 240', '§ 242', '§ 69']

Steering Law OfficesThe Lawyer’s Lounge – Jerry L. Steering Esq.The Scam Of Discovery In California Criminal Cases
THE SHAM AND SCAM OF DISCOVERY IN CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL CASES.
First, we all acknowledge that there really are honorable, decent, brave and virtuous, men and women of the law enforcement profession, at all levels. The actual risk of physical injury by working as a peace officer is usually greatly exaggerated, but as George Orwell
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” As discussed in other articles in this website, the exaggeration of that risk of danger to police officers, and the policy decisions by the courts in allowing “Officer Safety” to trump your and my Constitutional Rights, has lead to the police being excused from the traditional constraints on their power (i.e. the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures), to, as a practical matter, being able to seize the individual at their whim. As Justice William O. Douglas had the courage and foresight to profess in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) where, for the first time in the history of the Republic, the United States Supreme Court approved the seizure of a free citizen on less than “probable cause” to believe that the person had committed a crime:
“The opinion of the Court disclaims the existence of “probable cause.” If loitering were in issue and that was the offense charged, there would be “probable cause” shown. But the crime here is carrying concealed weapons; [n2] and there is no basis for concluding that the officer had “probable cause” for believing that that crime was being committed. Had a warrant been sought, a magistrate would, therefore, have been unauthorized to issue one, for he can act only if there is a showing of “probable cause.” We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a “seizure” and conduct a “search” than a judge has to authorize such action . . .
Lord Acton (John Dalberg-Acton (1834-1902)
The power that Terry v. Ohio gave the police is simply too much for many police officers to handle. For example, in Terry v. Ohio, for the first time in the history of the Republic, the Supreme Court “gave” the police the power to stop and frisk a person whom the police officer, based on articulable facts: 1) had a reasonable suspicion that crime “may be afoot” (“criminality afoot“), 2) that a particular person is suspected of being involved in that crime, and 3) he person suspected is armed and dangerous. A “stop and frisk” is also known as a “Terry stop.” A judge cannot issue a warrant for a person to be detained for questioning. There is no such thing as a detention warrant.
Terry v. Ohio was never meant to allow detentions of persons who were suspected of criminal activity and were not reasonably believed to have been armed and dangerous. See, Stop and Frisk Laws,Panelists discussed the Terry v. Ohio case, which dealt with law enforcement and police citizens encounters, C-SPAN Video, April 2, 1998. However, implicit in Terry’s stop and frisk of civilians is the ability of the police to detain that person. The police cannot frisk someone without in some way temporarily restricting their freedom to ignore the presence of the officer and to go about their business. They can’t pat them down on the run.
However, as always, give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Accordingly, the “long step down the totalitarian path” was the Supreme Court’s departure from 177 years of American jurisprudence that required the government to have “probable cause” to believe that you committed a crime to restrain your liberty.
A “stop and frisk” is also known as a “Terry stop.”A judge cannot issue a warrant for a person to be detained for questioning. There is no such thing as a detention warrant.
CONCEALMENT AND DESTRUCTION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE BY POLICE AND PROSECUTORS.
This is not some lefty Socialist Worker’s Party propaganda; this is a simple matter of truth, justice and the American way; at least what we’re taught is the American way. See, Judge Kozinski on prosecutorial misconduct, Washington Post, July 17, 2015.
For example, under the California discovery scheme, the defendant has a right to the discovery of the statements of witnesses who the prosecution intends to call at trial. Cal. Penal Code § 1054.1 However, notwithstanding that clear mandate of Section 1054.1, more often than not, even though the police know that items like police “Deputy / Officer Daily Activity Reports”, “Use of Force Investigation” packages, “Patrol Sergeant’s Daily Reports“, Deputy / Officer emails to each other and to supervisors, Intra-Departmental Memos, BOLO’s (be on look out for) and as especially the Internal Affairs investigation of the very incident complained of; something that contains the statements of the very witnesses that the prosecution intends to call at trial (i.e. the arresting officer who beat you up.)
These Internal Affairs Investigation files are not only kept secret from the accused, but also from the District Attorney’s Office;literally disabling the District Attorney’s Office from complying with their obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See, How a Man Named Brady Made History 50 Years Ago. New York Law Journal, May 13, 2013.
To even make things worse, in People v. Superior Court, S221296, Cal. Supreme Court (2015), the California Supreme Court held that in California Public Prosecutors comply with the state’s duty to provide exculpatory to a criminal defendants by waiting for police “tips” that a particular peace officer in a particular case might have evidence in their personnel records that may be exculpatory. Sorry folks, but the police are the last people in the world to give anyone any such tips:
“Because criminal defendants and the prosecution have equal ability to seek information in confidential personnel records , and because such defendants, who can represent their own interests at least as well as the prosecution and probably better, have the right to make a Pitchess motion whether or not the prosecution does so, we also conclude that the prosecution fulfills its Brady duty as regards the police department‘s tip if it informs the defense of what the police department informed it, namely, that the specified records might contain exculpatory information. That way, defendants may decide for themselves whether to bring a Pitchess motion.
The information the police department has provided, together with some explanation of how the officers‘ credibility might be relevant to the case, would satisfy the threshold showing a defend ant must make in order to trigger judicial review of the records under the Pitchess procedures. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reached different conclusions.”
People v. Superior Court, S221296, Cal. Supreme Court (2015); Chin, J.
However, there “glitches” with this system.
If you can’t subpoena the custodian of records from the investigating or arresting agency, the Deputy District Attorney simply stands in court and tells the judge that the police agency told him that no such documents or recordings exist, and the judge tells the defense lawyer, “Well, there you go. Next case please.”
In fact, the criminal defense lawyer needs to subpoena the custodian of records and/or the person with the investigating and arresting agency to the motion to compel discovery, and put them to task; make them testify as to whether any such items of discovery exist, and, if so, where are those items. Some judges won’t permit viva voce testimony at these hearings (mainly, because they’re creepy and/or they feel that they have to protect the cops, or they just don’t know any better.)
CAUTION: THESE RETENTION PERIODS ARE OFTEN MISREPRESENTED IN COURT BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.
It’s not that the District Attorney’s Office is lying. Because of the insidious way that pre-trial discovery works in California state court criminal prosecutions, perfectly honest Deputy District Attorneys simply stand-up in court, and tell the judge that she/he spoke with the involved police agency, and that some nice Detective or Evidence / Records Clerk at the police agency, told her that the recordings and documents sought, just don’t exist. End of story. Ninety percent of discovery disputes in California State Court criminal proceedings are basically handled that way. So, when you get-up in court, and want to obtain the audio recordings of 911 call that prompted the dispatcher to summons the patrol officer, jurisdictions such as the Riverside Sheriff’s Department will tell you that they have recently enlarged their retention period, from six months, to eight months.
Notwithstanding that reality, until March of 2012, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s Official written policy on the retention of Sheriff’s Department analog and digital audio recordings of Sheriff’s Department “911” communications and Sheriff’s Department radio communications, was six months; the same period for a person to make a California Tort Claim (Cal. Gov’t Code § 910 et seq.) Now, the retention period is 8 months, even thought the justification in past for “recycling” the radio and telephone communications tapes, was the fact that they were tapes that took-up a lot of space; not digital media. Nowadays, you can store the entire year’s worth of audio recordings of radio and telephone communications on a thumb drive, so why only 8 months? Because if the police have a recording that supports their position in a civil or criminal case, the audio recording is not purged, and if the audio recording would tend to undercut their position in a case, it either actually gets “purged”, or the cops claim that it was “purged.”
Therefore, if a criminal defendant is being accused of a crime such a resisting / obstructing / delaying a peace officer (Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1)), or assault and/or battery on a peace officer (Cal. Penal Code § 240/241(b)), battery on a peace officer (Cal. Penal Code §§ 242/243(b)) and Cal. Penal Code § 69; using or threatening the use of force and violence to interfere with a public officers lawful performance of his / her duties. See, People v. Curtis, 70 Cal.2d 347 (1969.) Thus, since prior incidents of brutality and/or dishonesty by a peace officer are typically considered admissible evidence in these types of case (i.e. * prior acts of dishonesty – for witness impeachment purposes, and prior acts of brutality -to show the officer’s propensity for violence by the “victim” peace officer; to prove unreasonable force during event [an actual and proper defense to “contempt of cop” crimes]), such evidence must necessarily be discoverable (that is, because it’s relevant and often exculpatory, the defendant is entitled to a copy of the evidence) by a criminal defendant, as well as civil plaintiffs, under different theories of admissibility.