In Galindo v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Jan. 7, 2009), a California Court of Appeal considered whether a criminal defendant has a right to obtain discovery of evidence of citizen complaints alleging misconduct by law enforcement officers for use in his or her preliminary hearing. The Court of Appeal held that a criminal defendant may not obtain discovery of such evidence before a preliminary hearing.
Facts
Moises Galindo was arrested by Los Angeles police officers on February 29, 2008. While the officers were escorting Galindo to their patrol car, Galindo allegedly told the officers that he would have them killed. Galindo was charged with resisting an officer in the performance of his duties and making criminal threats against the officers. Galindo entered a plea of not guilty.
Prior to his preliminary hearing, Galindo filed a motion in which he sought discovery of the personnel files of three officers involved in his arrest. Galindo sought evidence of the officers’ misconduct including evidence “of accusations against the officers alleging aggressive behavior, violence, excessive force, fabrication of charges, illegal search and seizure, false arrest, perjury, and false police reports.”
The magistrate who presided over Galindo’s preliminary hearing denied his motion. Galindo filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court, but the court denied his petition. The Court of Appeal also denied Galindo’s petition for writ of mandate. The California Supreme Court granted Galindo’s petition for review and then transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal.
Decision
The California Supreme Court held in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, “that a criminal defendant may discover evidence of citizen complaints alleging misconduct by law enforcement officers if that misconduct assists in the defense.” After the Pitchess case was handed down, the California Legislature codified procedures governing Pitchess discovery in the Evidence Code. However, the Evidence Code does not state whether a defendant can conduct Pitchess discovery to obtain evidence for use in his her preliminary hearing.
The Court of Appeal held “that a defendant may not pursue Pitchess discovery for a preliminary hearing.” The court declared, “In the absence of any express statutory authority entitling a defendant to Pitchess discovery for a preliminary hearing, we conclude the sounder approach is to find that no such right exists.” The court reached its conclusion after analyzing the nature of preliminary hearings. Preliminary hearings are “supposed to be relatively quick” and they “are not designed for pursuing discovery or as forums for discovery motions.” By statute, a defendant may not use a preliminary hearing as a means to conduct discovery. The Penal Code limits a defendant’s right to call witnesses during his or her preliminary hearing and a witness’s testimony can only be used to “establish an affirmative defense,” “negate an element of the charged offense,” or “impeach a prosecution witness or hearsay declarant.”
The court rejected Galindo’s argument that Pitchess discovery is necessary to ensure effective representation by his attorney at his preliminary hearing. Evidence obtained through a Pitchess motion is unlikely to lead to a different outcome at a defendant’s preliminary hearing, and therefore, a “counsel’s not receiving the material does not mean counsel is inadequately prepared for the preliminary hearing.”
The court denied Galindo’s petition for writ of mandate based on its conclusion that he could not seek Pitchess discovery for use in his preliminary hearing.
Questions
If you have any questions concerning the content of this Legal Alert, please contact the following from our office, or the attorney with whom you normally consult.
Mona Ebrahimi | 916.321.4500