Opinion ID: 2567545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Future Benefits to Zonen from the Release of Alpha Dog

Text: The trial court found Zonen had no present financial interest in Alpha Dog; while he was a consultant, he was not compensated in any way for his assistance. Hollywood contends, however, that by contributing to Alpha Dog, Zonen intended to create the prospect of tangible or intangible future benefits; he elevated the profile of a case he purportedly considers his legacy, put himself in a position to garner additional laurels and plaudits, and, perhaps, expanded the market for a book of his own based on this case. Thus, according to Hollywood, [f]uture profit may be implied. As discussed, however, the trial court concluded Zonen's sole interest in cooperating with the Alpha Dog filmmakers was to enhance the likelihood of the fugitive Hollywood's capture. While Hollywood disputes that conclusion, it is supported by substantial evidence. (See ante, ___ Cal.4th at p. ___, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 273-274, 182 P.3d at p. 598, 2008 WL 2003496.) Additionally, Mehas testified that Zonen had decided to shelve, for now, any plans for a book because of his belief that it might pose a conflict of interest problem. Hollywood acknowledges as much on appeal. Consequently, as the trial court found, Zonen is left with the same interest in burnishing his legacy that every attorney has in a high-profile caseindeed, that every attorney on both sides in this case has. Success in high-profile cases brings acclaim; it is endemic to such matters. Moreover, if the high-profile nature of a case presents incentives to handle the matter in any way contrary to the evenhanded dispensation of justice, the problem is not one recusal can solve, as the same issue would arise equally for any theoretical replacement prosecutor. In such matters, we must rely on our prosecutors to carry out their fiduciary obligation to exercise their discretionary duties fairly and justlyto afford every defendant, whether suspected of crimes high or petty, equal treatment under the law. (See People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 847, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673 [Our public prosecutors are charged with an important and solemn duty to ensure that justice and fairness remain the touchstone of our criminal justice system. In the vast majority of cases, these men and women perform their difficult jobs with professionalism, adhering to the highest ethical standards of their calling]; Corrigan, On Prosecutorial Ethics (1986) 13 Hastings Const. L.Q. 537, 537 [The first, best, and most effective shield against injustice for an individual accused, or society in general, must be found not in the persons of defense counsel, trial judge, or appellate jurist, but in the integrity of the prosecutor].) The trial court recognized as much and denied recusal on this basis.