X hits on this document





41 / 115

rights to a fair trial . . . .”  In argument on the motion, defense counsel claimed that because of the “camaraderie” in the district attorney’s office the prosecutors “could not but have a zealous approach to this particular case beyond that ordinarily shown in an evenhanded manner in an ordinary case.”  The court denied the motion, finding the defense had not shown “that a conflict of interest in our present case would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial.”

We recently reiterated the applicable principles in Hambarian v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 826 (Hambarian).  “The standard for a motion to disqualify the prosecutor is set forth in Penal Code section 1424:  ‘The motion may not be granted unless the evidence shows that a conflict of interest exists that would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial.’  We detailed the history of this statute and the associated legal principles in [People v. Eubanks (1996) 14 Cal.4th 580], where we explained that a ‘conflict,’ for purposes of section 1424, ‘ “exists whenever the circumstances of a case evidence a reasonable possibility that the DA’s office may not exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner.” ’  (Eubanks, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 592, quoting People v. Conner (1983) 34 Cal.3d 141, 148.)  However, ‘the conflict is disabling only if it is “so grave as to render it unlikely that defendant will receive fair treatment” ’ during all portions of the criminal proceedings.  (Eubanks, supra, at p. 594.)  The statute thus articulates a two-part test:  ‘(i) is there a conflict of interest?; and (ii) is the conflict so severe as to disqualify the district attorney from acting?’  (Ibid.)”  (Hambarian, supra, at p. 833, fn. omitted.)

Defendant argues the trial court applied the wrong standard:  according to him, the court was called upon only “to determine whether there was a ‘reasonable possibility’ that the D.A.’s office might not exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner.”  Defendant is clearly wrong:  such a determination would

Document info
Document views503
Page views503
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 06:05:02 UTC 2017