U.S. Supreme Court,
Government
Jun. 7, 2019
Brady v Pitchess
Does California's regime ensure 'Brady' compliance? Or is proactive sharing between law enforcement and prosecutors needed?
Geoffrey S. Sheldon
Chair, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Email: gsheldon@lcwlegal.com
Southwestern Univ SOL; Los Angeles CA
Sheldon is the chair of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore's (LCW) Public Safety Practice, where he provides expert legal counsel to California public safety agencies, focusing on the complexities of labor and employment. His expertise extends across various statutes, including the Peace Officers Bill of Rights Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and more.
Elizabeth J. Gibbons
Judith E Posner
Benedon & Serlin LLPSeveral state law enforcement agencies would like to inform prosecutors if officers have misconduct on their records, so prosecutors can seek and give to defendants any potential exculpatory evidence, as required by SCOTUS' 'Brady v. Maryland.' But does that violate California's 'Pitchess' laws, saying personnel files can only be opened in response to court orders?
Attorneys who brought and who argued the case before the state high court Wednesday - Geoffrey Sheldon (Liebert Cassidy Whitmore), Judy Posner (Benedon & Serlin) and Elizabeth Gibbons (The Gibbons Firm) - offer competing views.
Brian Cardile
brian_cardile@dailyjournal.com
Brian Cardile
brian_cardile@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com