Opinion ID: 1345677
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Threshold showing required

Text: In now deciding the issue, we must first consider the threshold showing a criminal defendant must make. The reporters claim Delaney must show their testimony would go to the heart of his case. He contends he need show only a reasonable possibility the evidence might result in his exoneration. On this point, Delaney has the better view. In CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 85 Cal. App.3d 241, the court explained, Against this right [of a free press] we are obliged to measure the threat to defendants' right to a fair trial. The existence of such a right is clear.... [I]t has resulted in the rule that, where a criminal defendant has demonstrated a reasonable possibility that evidence sought to be discovered might result in his exoneration, he is entitled to its discovery. ( Id., at p. 251, italics in original; Hallissy v. Superior Court, supra, 200 Cal. App.3d 1038, 1045.) Similarly, in Hammarley v. Superior Court, supra, 89 Cal. App.3d 388, the court stated, `Allowing an accused the right to discover is based on the fundamental proposition that he is entitled to a fair trial and an intelligent defense in light of all relevant and reasonably accessible information.' ( Id., at pp. 398-399, quoting Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 535 [113 Cal. Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305], italics added.) We hold that, to overcome a prima facie showing by a newsperson that he is entitled to withhold information under the shield law, a criminal defendant must show a reasonable possibility the information will materially assist his defense. A criminal defendant is not required to show that the information goes to the heart of his case. [21] (18) A criminal defendant's constitutional right to compulsory process was intended to permit him to request governmental assistance in obtaining likely helpful evidence, not just evidence that he can show beforehand will go to the heart of his case. The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. ( United States v. Nixon (1974) 418 U.S. 683, 709 [41 L.Ed.2d 1039, 1064, 94 S.Ct. 3090], italics added [claim of presidential privilege].) [22] The reasonable possibility requirement is also far more workable than the heart of the case test proposed by the reporters. It would be impractical to require a trial court to attempt to divine whether the evidence sought from the newsperson would cause a jury to exonerate a criminal defendant. A court cannot be expected to have that degree of prescience. Moreover, if applied literally, the heart of the case requirement would allow a defendant to obtain only evidence that would support a directed verdict in his favor. (19a) To provide guidance to the trial courts, we believe it helpful to make clear how the threshold requirement must be applied in practice. First, the burden is on the criminal defendant to make the required showing. ( Hallissy v. Superior Court, supra, 200 Cal. App.3d 1038, 1045.) Second, the defendant's showing need not be detailed or specific, but it must rest on more than mere speculation. Third, the defendant need not show a reasonable possibility the information will lead to his exoneration. He need show only a reasonable possibility the information will materially assist his defense. The distinction between exoneration and assisting the defense is significant. (20) Exoneration means the removal of a burden, charge, responsibility, or duty. (Black's Law Dict. (5th ed. 1979) p. 516, col. 2.) Stated more simply, in criminal proceedings, exoneration is generally understood to mean an acquittal or dismissal of charges. (19b) Evidence, however, may be critical to a defense even if it will not lead to exoneration. For example, evidence may establish an imperfect defense, a lesser included offense, a lesser related offense, or a lesser degree of the same crime; impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness; or, as in capital cases, establish mitigating circumstances relevant to the penalty determination. A criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial includes these aspects of his defense. [23]