Criminal,
Constitutional Law
Sep. 10, 2019
Ruling preserves Pitchess statute constitutionality-- for now
Using a common sense approach to the meaning of “confidentiality,” the California Supreme Court concluded that while Brady lists contain “confidential” officer personnel information, law enforcement agencies do not violate that confidentiality by informing the prosecution that a potential witness is on a Brady list.
Naeun Rim
Partner
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
Phone: (310) 312-4000
Email: nrim@manatt.com
Naeun specializes in trial work and white-collar defense. She is a former deputy federal public defender.
In a unanimous decision that provided much-needed clarity to prosecutors and law enforcement agencies across the state, the California Supreme Court held in ALADS v. Superior Court, 2019 DJDAR 8165 (Aug. 26, 2019), that a law enforcement agency does not violate California officer confidentiality statutes -- also known as $95
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In