This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Jun. 7, 2019

Brady v. Pitchess

Does California's regime ensure 'Brady' compliance? Or is proactive sharing between law enforcement and prosecutors needed?

Missing

Geoffrey S. Sheldon

Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore

Email: gsheldon@lcwlegal.com

Southwestern Univ SOL; Los Angeles CA

Missing

Elizabeth J. Gibbons

Missing

Judith E Posner

Benedon & Serlin LLP


audio

Several 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.

#352879

Brian Cardile

Rulings Editor, Podcast Host, California Supreme Court reporter
brian_cardile@dailyjournal.com

Brian Cardile

Rulings Editor, Podcast Host, California Supreme Court reporter
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