Court Opinion

ID: 9745932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:43:14.666951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:06.412181
License: Public Domain

ARANDA, J.*
I concur completely in the majority decision and reasoning. Even so, I must stress that the protection of witnesses should be of paramount public concern.
One of the principal foundations of our free society is our community’s belief in the integrity of law enforcement. The minor herein, Moisés Torrez, cooperated with law enforcement by voluntarily giving a statement. It matters not who he was or why he was at the scene of the crime. It is and it should continue to be the strong public policy of this state that persons who witness a crime must be encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement.
I see no misconduct by the police officers. The facts herein can only lead to the conclusion that the police officers meant what they said at the time *1506they guaranteed to Moisés Torrez that his statement would not put him in danger.
The county’s deputy district attorney deliberately and intentionally violated the detectives’ guarantee. Thus, the police officers’ warranty given to Moisés Torrez when he gave his statement was rendered meaningless by the deliberate and calculated action of the county’s deputy district attorney. The district attorney herein was also a named defendant in Falls v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1031 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 908]. In that case a witness, Edward Samaniego, after testifying in somewhat similar gang circumstances, was killed on August 17,1992. The trial herein was on October 12, 1992, only 56 days after Samaniego’s killing. And, Torrez too was dead a week later. His rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were over.
The death of this boy shocks the conscience. In order to obtain a conviction, the life of a witness was deliberately put in jeopardy if not outright sacrificed by the prosecution. If the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment due process clause has any relevance in today’s society, it must surely deny to the state and the county prosecutor, when acting under the color of law, the carte blanche power to place a 16-year-old’s life in jeopardy. “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law . . . .”1 At oral argument, appellant’s counsel asked how many more times would this particular district attorney be granted prosecutorial immunity for such actions. The answer must lie with the Legislature. A prosecutor must have the requisite immunity to effectively seek justice. At the same time a witness must have the requisite safety to be willing to testify.
Yet, this case amply demonstrates, and I can only conclude, that absolute prosecutorial immunity, if permitted to have precedence over the safety of citizen witnesses of this state, may well have a chilling effect on any witness willing to voluntarily come forward to talk to law enforcement in the days to come.

 Judge of the Municipal Court for the South Bay Judicial District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

 United States Constitution, article XIV, section 1. In Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (1993) 509 U.S. 259 [125 L.Ed.2d 209, 113 S.Ct. 2606], the United States Supreme Court indicates that there are limits to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Also see Hertzke v. Riley (E.D.Pa. 1989) 715 F.Supp. 117, 121.