Legal Opinion

People v. White

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 20, 2011No. B218065PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PERREN, J.

The procedures attendant to a criminal defendant’s right to discover relevant evidence in confidential peace officer personnel files— through the filing of a so-called “Pitchess”1 motion—are established by both statute and decisional law.2 The defining hallmark of the process is an in camera hearing in which the trial court reviews the files at issue outside the presence of the defendant and his or her counsel. The completeness of the records is established through questioning of the custodian of records who produced them. In order to protect the defendant’s right to a fair…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Pitchess v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. People v. PrinceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  4. People v. MoocCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. People v. YearwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. Vesco v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  3. P. v. Vasquez CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. People v. Logan CA2/1California Court of Appeal · 2016
  5. People v. Lydon CA3California Court of Appeal · 2020

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API