Supreme Court of California

Recusal of several prosecutors for conflict of interest arising from their alleged representation of the victim's interests is reversed and remanded where: 1) the court of appeal was incorrect in deciding that the prosecutor's zealous advocacy in preventing disclosure of the victim's medical records was in bad faith; and 2) the participation of the prosecutor in third party discovery process did not amount to advocacy of the victim's interests merely because their interests are similar.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/12/2008
• Published 05/12/2008

Judges

• WERDEGAR, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Lael R. Rubin, William Woods and Tracey Lopez, Deputy District Attorneys, for Petitioner., Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Donald E. de Nicola, Deputy State Solicitor General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, and Kristofer Jorstad, Deputy Attorney General, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner., Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney (San Bernardino) and Grover D. Merritt, Lead Deputy District Attorney, for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner., Kent S. Scheidegger and L. Douglas Pipes for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner., Loeb & Loeb, Karen R. Thorland and Anne W. Braveman, Los Angeles, for Rape Treatment Center at Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner., Michael P. Judge, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, Kelly O'Brien and Maureen Pacheco, Deputy Public Defenders, for Real Party in Interest.


• For Appellees:
  
• No appearance for Respondent.