1054
1. Discovery is between the parties. 1054.b
2. The parties are the plaintiff and the defendant.
3. The citing officer/agency is NOT a party, merely a witness. People v. Marcroft (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 544.
4. The officer can not act as the prosecuting attorney unless he's a member in good standing with the CA Bar. Professions Code 6125.
5. The District Attorney is the public prosecutor, opposing counsel. Government Code 26500
6. The party shall make an informal request. 1054.5.b
7. The Prosecuting SHALL DISCLOSE... 1054.1
8. A prosecutor has a duty to search for and disclose exculpatory evidence if the evidence... Kyles v. Whitley, supra, 514 U.S. at p. 437 [115 S.Ct. at p. 1567]
9. Evidence may be prohibited if a party does not comply. 1054.5.c
To sum up. Either the DA writes back saying they don't do traffic tiickets (=no prosecution) or they don't answer at all (=all evidence is not allowed, i.e. officer notes, ticket, etc).
So:
Whereas we will give opposing counsel benefit of the doubt and argue they would not disobey the law by denying Defendant a right guaranteed in the Constitution; and
Whereas opposing counsel does have the right to elect to not prosecute the case; and
Whereas a decision not to prosecute is the only explanation other than denying Defendant’s right that explains opposing counsel’s refusal to comply with the discovery request; and
Whereas, prosecution being an act of the executive, not the judicial, the court may not initiate or reinstate on its own any prosecution; and
Whereas the case, per this argument has failed per lack of prosecution; and
Whereas the only other alternative is that Defendant has been denied a right guaranteed by the Constitution, which is grounds for dismissal per Penal Code § 1054.5(c);
Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests an immediate dismissal of this case.
-AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE? Where is the grounds for denying a motion to dismiss?