BRAHAM v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF HARBOR JUDICIAL DISTRICT (1981)

OPINION

Jonathan Kirsch, one of the more discerning observers of the current California legal scene, wrote recently that we are confronted with an “ever expanding legal universe that imposes no bounds on the enterprising and imaginative attorney.”  (Too Many Lawyers, Jonathan Kirsch, New West, January 1981.)   The fact that the contention made in this case has even been made gives substance to Mr. Kirsch's remark.

Petitioner was charged with misdemeanors in the municipal court.   His attorney filed a petition in the superior court requesting dismissal of the actions on the ground that his client was being denied due process because the district attorney would not talk to him.   Understandably, the superior court promptly denied the petition.

Petitioner's due process argument goes something like this:

In felony prosecutions, a grand jury or magistrate stands between an over-zealous prosecutor and an unnecessary trial.   Therefore, when, in a misdemeanor prosecution, defense counsel wants to talk to the district attorney and persuade him that the district attorney's witnesses are lying and his are telling the truth, the refusal of the district attorney to talk to him denies him due process.

Petitioner cites no authority for this remarkable contention.   We know of no such authority.   We decline to establish any such authority.

 At the present time, there exist numerous pretrial motions which are available to defendants charged with a crime.   We decline to add the name Braham to such household words as Theodor, Eleazer, Beagle, Aranda, Ballard, Wheeler, Greer, Johnson, Jones, Hitch, Baker, Jennings, Rost, Comden, Kellett and Smith.   To be specific, we hold that due process does not mandate that the district attorney meet and confer with defense counsel in misdemeanor prosecutions.

 Petitioner also complains that the district attorney told a witness that he did not have to talk to defense counsel.   That is precisely the law.   (People v. Mills, 87 Cal.App.3d 302, 151 Cal.Rptr. 71.)

Reluctantly, we bring this breathless controversy to a close and return to more mundane matters.

Judgment affirmed.

GARDNER, Presiding Justice.

TAMURA and McDANIEL, JJ., concur.