The Inquisitive Prosecutors’ Guide
2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”)

2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”)

December 2, 2019

2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”)

This Inquisitive Prosecutors Guide discusses the California Supreme Court case of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2019) 8 Cal.5th 828, the modification to the Pitchess statutes made by Senate Bill 1421 (SB 1421), and the respective impacts of both on various issues relating to prosecutorial disclosure obligations. The accompanying podcast features a conversation with discovery expert, Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney David Angel and will attempt to answer over a dozen questions raised by the case and SB 1421, including: (1) Can, must, or should law enforcement agencies provide “Brady tips” to prosecutors? (2) Can prosecutors pass on to defense attorneys “Brady tips” received from law enforcement agencies without complying with the Pitchess procedures? (3) Can law enforcement agencies provide information about officers who might be witnesses in a future prosecution? and (4) What peace officer personnel files do or don’t remain confidential under SB 1421?   The accompanying podcast will provide 80 minutes of general MCLE credit.

2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”) - PDF VERSION

2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”) - PDF VERSION

December 2, 2019

2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”)

This Inquisitive Prosecutors Guide discusses the California Supreme Court case of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2019) 8 Cal.5th 828, the modification to the Pitchess statutes made by Senate Bill 1421 (SB 1421), and the respective impacts of both on various issues relating to prosecutorial disclosure obligations. The accompanying podcast features a conversation with discovery expert, Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney David Angel and will attempt to answer over a dozen questions raised by the case and SB 1421, including: (1) Can, must, or should law enforcement agencies provide “Brady tips” to prosecutors? (2) Can prosecutors pass on to defense attorneys “Brady tips” received from law enforcement agencies without complying with the Pitchess procedures? (3) Can law enforcement agencies provide information about officers who might be witnesses in a future prosecution? and (4) What peace officer personnel files do or don’t remain confidential under SB 1421?   The accompanying podcast will provide 80 minutes of general MCLE credit.

icon for podbean
2019-IPG-41 (IMPEACHMENT WITH CONVICTIONS & MISCONDUCT OF MORAL TURPITUDE)

2019-IPG-41 (IMPEACHMENT WITH CONVICTIONS & MISCONDUCT OF MORAL TURPITUDE)

September 24, 2019

2019-IPG-41 (IMPEACHMENT WITH CONVICTIONS & MISCONDUCT OF MORAL TURPITUDE)

In this edition of IPG, we address the various issues that arise when seeking to impeach a witness or defendant with prior convictions or misconduct.  Among the issues discussed: (i) when a witness can be asked about conduct underlying a felony conviction involving moral turpitude for purposes of impeachment; (ii) when a person can be impeached with a felony conviction that has been subject to relief pursuant to Penal Code sections 1203.4 et seq.; (iii) what information a prosecutor must know or have before questioning a defendant about a prior conviction; (iv) when a witness can be impeached with noncriminal misconduct of moral turpitude; (v) whether a defendant or witness is entitled to bring out the fact the impeaching conduct resulted in a dismissal or an acquittal; and (vi) when a defendant or witness can successfully assert the Fifth Amendment privilege as to questions about pending criminal conduct being offered to impeach.   The accompanying podcast will provide 75 minutes of general MCLE credit.

MORAL-TURPITUDE-CRIMES-LIST.09-25-19- PDF VERSION
2018-IPG-39 (NEW RESENTENCING PROVISIONS OF PC § 1170(d)(1))

2018-IPG-39 (NEW RESENTENCING PROVISIONS OF PC § 1170(d)(1))

November 2, 2018
2018-IPG-39 (NEW RESENTENCING PROVISIONS OF PC § 1170(d)(1) - PDF VERSION

2018-IPG-39 (NEW RESENTENCING PROVISIONS OF PC § 1170(d)(1) - PDF VERSION

November 2, 2018
icon for podbean
2018-IPG-38 (OBTAINING CELL SITE INFO: CARPENTER) PDF VERSION

2018-IPG-38 (OBTAINING CELL SITE INFO: CARPENTER) PDF VERSION

August 7, 2018

2018-IPG-38 (OBTAINING CELL SITE INFO: CARPENTER)

 

icon for podbean
2018-IPG-38 (OBTAINING CELL SITE INFO: CARPENTER)

2018-IPG-38 (OBTAINING CELL SITE INFO: CARPENTER)

August 6, 2018

This IPG discusses the United States Supreme Court decision in Carpenter v. United States (2018) 138 S.Ct. 2206, a case deciding whether a warrant is required to obtain cell site location information (CSLI), and its potential impact on law enforcement’s ability to obtain CSLI.  Among the issues discussed: (i) Does this decision have any real impact on the ability of law enforcement in California to obtain CSLI without a warrant – considering that the California Electronic Communication Privacy Act already generally requires a warrant for electronic communication information?  (ii)  Will this decision impact a prosecutor’s ability to subpoena third party records in general when a defendant has a privacy interest in the third-party records? (iii) If exigent circumstances exist, can the government obtain either historical or real-time CSLI without a warrant? 

2018-IPG-37 (LIMITS ON PROSECUTORIAL CONTACTS WITH REPRESENTED & UNREPRESENTED PERSONS)

2018-IPG-37 (LIMITS ON PROSECUTORIAL CONTACTS WITH REPRESENTED & UNREPRESENTED PERSONS)

July 12, 2018

2018-IPG-37 (LIMITS ON PROSECUTORIAL CONTACTS WITH REPRESENTED & UNREPRESENTED PERSONS)

 

2018-IPG-37 (LIMITS ON PROSECUTORIAL CONTACTS WITH REPRESENTED & UNREPRESENTED PERSONS) PDF VERSION

2018-IPG-37 (LIMITS ON PROSECUTORIAL CONTACTS WITH REPRESENTED & UNREPRESENTED PERSONS) PDF VERSION

July 12, 2018

2018-IPG-37 (LIMITS ON PROSECUTORIAL CONTACTS WITH REPRESENTED & UNREPRESENTED PERSONS)

 

icon for podbean