Opinion ID: 1143317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The District Attorney's Duty

Text: (3) The duty of the district attorney is not merely that of an advocate. His duty is not to obtain convictions, but to fully and fairly present to the court the evidence material to the charge upon which the defendant stands trial.... ( In re Ferguson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 525, 531 [96 Cal. Rptr. 594, 487 P.2d 1234].) At trial  where the adversary system operates  the district attorney may discharge his duty by disclosing to the defendant the substantial material evidence favorable to him. ( People v. Ruthford (1975) 14 Cal.3d 399 [121 Cal. Rptr. 261, 534 P.2d 1341].) The district attorney is not obligated to present such evidence at trial himself because it is defense counsel's duty to do so. (See People v. Kiihoa (1960) 53 Cal.2d 748, 752 [3 Cal. Rptr. 1, 349 P.2d 673].) (1b) However, the adversary system does not extend to grand jury proceedings. As has been explained, if the district attorney does not bring exculpatory evidence to the attention of the grand jury, the jury is unlikely to learn of it. We hold, therefore, that when a district attorney seeking an indictment is aware of evidence reasonably tending to negate guilt, he is obligated under section 939.7 to inform the grand jury of its nature and existence, so that the grand jury may exercise its power under the statute to order the evidence produced. Having disposed of this case on statutory grounds, we need not consider petitioner's alternative due process argument. We have considered the People's procedural objections and find them meritless. The writ issues without prejudice to the district attorney's continuing to prosecute these charges by seeking another indictment, or by filing another complaint. (See People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, 666 [108 Cal. Rptr. 657, 511 P.2d 609].)