Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Use of an Informant

Text: Defendant complains that the prosecution interfered with his attorney-client relationship because it used a jail-house informant to investigate allegations that he was conspiring to kill a prosecution witness. The claim is without merit. During a pretrial conference, an issue arose regarding the prosecutor's attempts to subpoena videotapes from three Iranian television stations that had broadcast stories in which defendant made statements about the case in phone calls to his mother, which were then aired. One of the stations had failed to comply with the subpoena and there was some discussion about how to enforce it. Defense counsel interjected, accusing the prosecution of overreaching, [and] overzealous enforcement. In the course of his remarks, he claimed that the prosecutor had ordered defendant transferred to various cells in the county jail so he can gather evidence. He asked that the subpoenas to the television stations not be enforced. The trial court rejected his request, pointing out that he had no standing regarding the subpoenas because they were directed at third parties. Defense counsel cited Barber v. Municipal Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 742, 157 Cal.Rptr. 658, 598 P.2d 818 for the proposition that when the prosecution infiltrates the defense camp, the prosecution runs afoul of the Sixth Amendment, and Mr. Panah does have standing to complain about Sixth Amendment violations, and I would submit it. The trial denied the motion to quash, observing there was not even a hint that this has anything to do with the attorney-client relationship or privilege. Then, while recognizing there's no motion before the court, it invited the prosecutor to respond to defense counsel's other allegations. The prosecutor replied that his office had received information that defendant was involved in a conspiracy to murder two prosecution witnesses and had conducted an investigation that involved obtaining court orders to tape conversations between defendant and an informant. He pointed out that the defense had been fully informed of the investigation, which had not resulted in a filing against defendant. He invited the defense to file whatever motions it deemed appropriate with respect to the investigation. Defense counsel responded, When the day is appropriate, we will notice any appropriate motion and we will litigate it with appropriate testimony, Your Honor. There was no further discussion of the point. Thus, defendant never made a motion on Sixth Amendment grounds to suppress any evidence obtained by the prosecutor's use of an informant to investigate the alleged conspiracy to kill witnesses. Indeed, no charges were ever filed against defendant arising out of the investigation, nor was any of the evidence gathered during the information used against him at trial. Moreover, defendant cites nothing in the record that controverts the prosecutor's statements either that the investigation was conducted lawfully or that all information regarding it was turned over to the defense. In fact, during the course of defendant's November 21 Marsden motion, defense counsel acknowledged having received and reviewed transcripts from the taped conversations between defendant and the informant. We therefore conclude that defendant forfeited any Sixth Amendment claim based on the prosecution's use of the informant and, in any event, has failed to show any violation of his Sixth Amendment right or that he suffered any conceivable prejudice. (See United States v. Morrison (1981) 449 U.S. 361, 365, 366, 101 S.Ct. 665, 66 L.Ed.2d 564; People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 1006-1008, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044.) Defendant contends that the prosecutor used conversations between him and the informant to prevent defendant from gaining access to Rauni Campbell, one of the alleged targets of the conspiracy to kill witnesses. As noted below, the prosecution made Campbell available to the defense, but she declined to be interviewed by the defense. Defendant cites nothing in the record to support his claim that Campbell's unwillingness to speak to the defense investigator was related to defendant's conversations with the informant.