Supreme Court of California

Superior court did not abuse its discretion in declining to disqualify prosecutor's office, which had accepted services from a forensic accountant employed and compensated by the victim (city of Orange), in prosecution for fraud and money laundering; proper standard in such cases is "whether the conflict makes fair and impartial treatment of the defendant unlikely" based on the "entire complex of facts."

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/18/2002
• Published 04/18/2002

Judges

• BAXTER, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
•  Marshall M. Schulman;  Cleary & Sevilla, Charles M. Sevilla, San Diego;  Geragos & Geragos and Mark J. Geragos, Los Angeles, for Petitioner., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson and David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. Horst and Douglas P. Danzig, Deputy Attorneys General;  Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, David S. Kirkpatrick and Brian N. Gurwitz, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, David J. Kulik, Kirk J. Nahra and Brian F. Chandler for National Insurance Crime Bureau and Coalition Against Insurance Fraud as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest., Dennis L. Stout, District Attorney (San Bernardino), Lance A. Cantos and Grover D. Merritt, Deputy District Attorneys, for California District Attorneys' Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.


• For Appellees:
  
• No appearance for Respondent.