Have Not Received Discovery, Need to File TBD

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

^THERE^ it is folks! It is clear as day, and yet, people choose to simply ignore what is written in black and white only to hang their dreams on "dismissal" which not only has no legal basis, it is clearly prohibited in the same statutes you are all staring at!

---

It would be every DA's wet dream if the courts interpreted "possession" as narrowly as that...but they don't:

Quote:

---

Quoting In re Littlefield, 851 P. 2d 42 - Cal: Supreme Court 1993

---

(paragraph bulleted for clarity)

• California courts long have interpreted the prosecutorial obligation to disclose relevant materials in the possession of the prosecution to include information "within the possession or control" of the prosecution. (See Hill v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 812, 816 [112 Cal. Rptr. 257, 518 P.2d 1353, 95 A.L.R.3d 820].)
• In Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531, 535, we construed the scope of possession and control as encompassing information "reasonably accessible" to the prosecution.
• In Engstrom v. Superior Court (1971) 20 Cal. App.3d 240, 243 [97 Cal. Rptr. 484] (disapproved on other grounds in Hill v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 820), the court held that materials discoverable by the defense include information in the possession of all agencies (to which the prosecution has access) that are part of the criminal justice system, and not solely information "in the hands of the prosecutor." (20 Cal. App.3d at p. 244.)
• In People v. Coyer (1983) 142 Cal. App.3d 839, 843 [191 Cal. Rptr. 376], the court described information subject to disclosure by the prosecution as that "readily available" to the prosecution and not accessible to the defense.

---

If an informal request is ignored, it can certainly be argued that because this information is "reasonably accessible" or "readily available" to the prosecution and (at that point) not as accessible to the defense, it's in the prosecution's control and they have to provide it. Do you see a police station ignoring a request from the CA/DA's office to the defendant? They sure could (and do) if it came from the defendant.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Are you aware of ANY county in the entire state that does offer the benefit/privilege of a motion hearing for a traffic infraction case?

---

Briefly, yes. I'll reserve a detailed answer for later until I can get my hands on a copy of the "Instructions for Filing a Traffic Motion" from said court.

Meanwhile, you can feast on this VC 22350 case from Santa Clara County in 2000 which included multiple motions, hearings, continuances as well as a "prosecutor" in the form of law interns with the DA's office. I'm not claiming Santa Clara still does this a decade later, what with the budget crunch and all, but they certainly did in 2000 if you were persistent enough.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

And do you seriously think that you'll find one judge in the entire state who would go out on a limb and issue an order to compel a prosecutor to drop the stacks of misdemeanor and felony files only to spend time chasing after documents that (may be not for 88s) more often than not can be obtained by other means?

---

Frankly, this is hyperbole because (a) you have advocated a motion to compel innumerable times on this board as the legitimate option for failure to receive discovery and (b) the prosecutor doesn't have to chase anything -- I'm sure a simple call from someone in his office to the citing officer's station would make sure the documents get to the defendant [as I have mentioned before, I'm OK if the envelope comes from the citing agency as long as it contains the necessary information].

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Lastly, as to the few recommendations you made above, can you cite the authority, code section or case law citation that would provide any basis that they are viable options?

---

The only recommendations I see are a hail-mary dismiss for failure to prosecute (which involves the judge's discretion per PC 1385), and the motion to comply per PC 1054.5(b).

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Sorry for all the questions... And don't get me wrong, from a theoretical and procedural stand point, many of your ideas sound great... However, from a practical and realistic stance, they really are.... Shall we say, "pointless"...

---

Well, as to the latter part, I'll take it "under advisement" :p . There's no need to apologize, and please keep on with the questions. I love to debate and am glad to have someone this smart to spar with.

But, we still have to return to the simple fact that the CVC requires citations be filed with the court. They never, ever, EVER go to a prosecutor unless for some strange reason the prosecutor retrieves them from the court, or they are sent by the agency to the prosecutor because the matter might be capable of being charged as a misdemeanor (such as with unlicensed or suspended driving cites).

Whether it is reasonable to assume that the prosecutor has access to this information or not is debatable and likely varies depending on the jurisdiction. Depending on the size of the county, this may or may not be reasonable for them to track down. But, as has been oft-repeated, even if the DA fails to respond to the discovery request the court can still compel the agency to provide the information.

Small counties as mine make it easy ... so long as the Discovery request at least indicates the agency. heck, here if we have the name, we can probably track it down ... unless it's an officer with the BLM, Forest Service, or Fish and Game. Large counties where you have thousands of officers, dozens of jurisdictions, and agencies that may be federal or state level, tracking down a cite by officer name or cite number might be far more difficult.

^^^ I agree absolutely, and I'm OK with both CC'ing the request to the agency/station and the response coming in an envelope without the DA's return address on it. The request should include at least the cite number AND the agency. My county simply forwards the request along too.

Given a motion to compel, the court will probably decide who (agency/DA) will most effectively provide the requested info.

As for access, let's take the LA Superior Court. I assume the CA/DA's office has access to the same online system us regular folks do. A citation can be located given the courthouse, citation number and the citing agency. A proper IDR should have at least those three pieces of info.

Providing a citation number only is begging to be ignored or rejected.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

It would be every DA's wet dream if the courts interpreted "possession" as narrowly as that...but they don't:

---

Nice try... But let's keep things in proper perspective.

We are discussing “discovery relative to a traffic infraction case”. The 5 cases you cited, and while they do indeed define the prosecutor's role and responsibility to provide a defendant with timely discovery, they relate to criminal matters of a more serious nature, AND more importantly, matters that are handled by the prosecutor... Therefore, the prosecutor's role is well defined and his/her responsibilities are derived therefrom. Not the case here.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

If an informal request is ignored, it can certainly be argued that because this information is "reasonably accessible" or "readily available" to the prosecution and (at that point) not as accessible to the defense, it's in the prosecution's control and they have to provide it.

---

It certainly can be argued that -insert any wild idea you may have-... That does not mean the argument is worth much! But before you can get arguing that because this information is "reasonably accessible" or "readily available" to the prosecution..., you should elaborate on your definition of "reasonably accessible" or "readily available". As far as I am concerned, and as soon as someone from the prosecutor's office sits at his/her desk to write a letter to the LEA requesting such info, it is NEITHER under their control, NOR is it in their possession. Why would you have to “REQUEST” something that is under YOUR CONTROL and IN YOUR POSSESSION????????????????

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Briefly, yes. I'll reserve a detailed answer for later until I can get my hands on a copy of the "Instructions for Filing a Traffic Motion" from said court.

---

Take your time... But when you do end up posting anything that is related, let me reitterate that the intent of my questions above is not how to file or argue your motion, but how to get the court to schedule such hearing on a different date/time than your arraignment or your trial! Better yet, get one for L.A. County and I'm sure the OP will greatly appreciate it!

BTW, you said "Briefly, yes" but we never got the brief version!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Meanwhile, you can feast on this VC 22350 case from Santa Clara County in 2000 which included multiple motions, hearings, continuances as well as a "prosecutor" in the form of law interns with the DA's office. I'm not claiming Santa Clara still does this a decade later, what with the budget crunch and all, but they certainly did in 2000 if you were persistent enough.

---

You can call it a feast, I would rather refer to it as a famine for relevant or applicable information. The fact that the prosecutor's office was involved to some degree in that case, meant that they could not argue that the information is not in their possession or under their control... Compare that to this case where the prosecutor in not even aware of the existence of the citation, and I'll still stick to my opinions that a “lack of prosecution” argument is dead before it even starts!!! In other words, you go ahead and show up at trial, and you'll find out that you WILL BE PROSECUTED!!!

Still regardless of whether the DA is or isn't involved, or whether that court allowed for separate hearings so the defendant can argue motions, that case would provide a good example (but not a citable reference) of “lack of prosecution because the officer did not show up at trial” BUT NOT because the DA refused to comply with a discovery request, which is the issue we are discussing here! In fact, that case was dismissed simply because the officer was unavailable to appear on the date of the trial.

But hey, since we're posting stories, here is one I was shocked by: I have a friend who -a few years back- had interned at several different DA offices in several counties, and one of his assignment was to go to traffic court to try and settle moving violations to non-movers... Something that is unheard of these days... Highly doubt this is of any help to the OP!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Frankly, this is hyperbole because (a) you have advocated a motion to compel innumerable times on this board as the legitimate option for failure to receive discovery and (b) the prosecutor doesn't have to chase anything -- I'm sure a simple call from someone in his office to the citing officer's station would make sure the documents get to the defendant [as I have mentioned before, I'm OK if the envelope comes from the citing agency as long as it contains the necessary information].

---

Not only innumerable times, but I have advocated a motion to compel EACH AND EVERY time someone came along asking about discovery versus dismissal. And along with that, I have often made reference to 1054(c) which bars the court from dismissing a case where the prosecutor failed to provide discovery. You, on the other hand, haven't mentioned a motion to compel... Instead, you are suggesting the OP should leap into a "motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution" (worse yet, in a TBD).

You can call it a hyperbole or whatever... But I NEVER suggested that the prosecutor will comply (run out, request the items and provide them to the defendant); I NEVER implied that the prosecutor's failure to do so will result in a dismissal, and I NEVER hinted that the prosecutor's failure to provide discovery constitutes a “failure to prosecute”.

Instead, my recommending a motion to compel in each and every discovery thread, was merely to advise the OP that any “lack of discovery” argument will be best made if and only if the defendant were to follow the provisions of PC1054, thereby strengthening their position that by doing so, the defendant expects the judge to hold the other side to the same rules, requirements and procedures, thereby affording him/her the opportunity to review documents listed in their request prior to their case going to trial!

So in a typical discovery related thread which usually starts out with “I requested discovery, I haven't received anything, how do I get a dismissal”. In response, I would inform the OP that a dismissal is not an automatic outcome at that point, that the next step in the process is a motion to compel, and that by doing so, they are very likely to get the opportunity to review the evidence before their trial AND possibly have a legitimate reason for a continuance (another remedy under PC 1054.5) as a result.

So the hyperbolas that I see in this thread and elsewhere, are NOT coming from my side...

And from your response to Carl's post:

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Given a motion to compel, the court will probably decide who (agency/DA) will most effectively provide the requested info.

---

The information will be more effectively and efficiently provided by the LEA...

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

As for access, let's take the LA Superior Court. I assume the CA/DA's office has access to the same online system us regular folks do. A citation can be located given the courthouse, citation number and the citing agency.

---

So the DA now has a[n identical] copy of the citation that the defendant has in his possession. What about the other items that are in the possession of the LEA?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Therefore, the prosecutor's role is well defined and his/her responsibilities are derived therefrom. Not the case here.

---

Please enlighten me with statue or case law which, other than relief from attendance in court, defines the prosecutor's role in an infraction case to be any different than misdemeanors?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

But before you can get arguing that because this information is "reasonably accessible" or "readily available" to the prosecution..., you should elaborate on your definition of "reasonably accessible" or "readily available". As far as I am concerned, and as soon as someone from the prosecutor's office sits at his/her desk to write a letter to the LEA requesting such info, it is NEITHER under their control, NOR is it in their possession. Why would you have to “REQUEST” something that is under YOUR CONTROL and IN YOUR POSSESSION????????????????

---

You (and the DA) are free to define those phrases however you wish. If you read the case law above, the definitions as the COURTS construe them are pretty clear and cited authoritatively would certainly result in the granting of any motion to compel.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

but how to get the court to schedule such hearing on a different date/time than your arraignment or your trial! Better yet, get one for L.A. County and I'm sure the OP will greatly appreciate it!

---

IIRC, the process at the relevant Traffic Division is to ask the clerk for the first free space on the motion calendar, prepare a motion for on or after that date, serve it on the DA and then file it with the court with proof of service to the DA. If the first free date is AFTER your trial is scheduled, I was informed it will be heard ON the day of the trial. As for LA County, I will try to get authoritative info soon.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Still regardless of whether the DA is or isn't involved, or whether that court allowed for separate hearings so the defendant can argue motions, that case would provide a good example (but not a citable reference) of “lack of prosecution because the officer did not show up at trial” BUT NOT because the DA refused to comply with a discovery request, which is the issue we are discussing here! In fact, that case was dismissed simply because the officer was unavailable to appear on the date of the trial.

---

You have your cases crossed...the officer DID show up at trial but it was dismissed because of a technicality in the definition of "local street" in 22350.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

You, on the other hand, haven't mentioned a motion to compel... Instead, you are suggesting the OP should leap into a "motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution" (worse yet, in a TBD).

You can call it a hyperbole or whatever... But I NEVER suggested that the prosecutor will comply (run out, request the items and provide them to the defendant); I NEVER implied that the prosecutor's failure to do so will result in a dismissal, and I NEVER hinted that the prosecutor's failure to provide discovery constitutes a “failure to prosecute”.

---

It also looks like you have your posts crossed. Here's the portion of my reply to OP you're going on about:

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

1. Let's get one thing clear first. You will have to submit your TBD before you can seek any kind of resolution -- motions must be filed at least 10 days before they're scheduled to be heard.
   
2. What you can try is motion for dismissal based on lack of prosecution. Carlucci only absolves the prosecutor from personally appearing at the trial, not from his other responsibilities. If the letter states that Cooley is not the prosecuting attorney, who's representing the people? Formulate a motion based on that.
   
3. Either in that motion, OR verbally at the motion hearing, if it isn't granted, you can motion to order the DA's office to comply with your request.

---

1. I clearly tell him any motions, etc. will happen AFTER the TBD.
2. The "lack of prosecution" is based solely on the statement in the letter from the DA's office: the DA is not the prosecuting attorney. It has nothing to do with failure to provide discovery.
3. I tell the OP to have a motion to compel in his back pocket.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Instead, my recommending a motion to compel in each and every discovery thread, was merely to advise the OP that any “lack of discovery” argument will be best made if and only if the defendant were to follow the provisions of PC1054, thereby strengthening their position that by doing so, the defendant expects the judge to hold the other side to the same rules, requirements and procedures, thereby affording him/her the opportunity to review documents listed in their request prior to their case going to trial!

So in a typical discovery related thread which usually starts out with “I requested discovery, I haven't received anything, how do I get a dismissal”. In response, I would inform the OP that a dismissal is not an automatic outcome at that point, that the next step in the process is a motion to compel, and that by doing so, they are very likely to get the opportunity to review the evidence before their trial AND possibly have a legitimate reason for a continuance (another remedy under PC 1054.5) as a result.

---

No arguments there; it's perfect. As I said, my "dismissal" idea was based on the DA's letter stating verbatim "The DA is NOT the prosecuting attorney [for your case]." -- not failure to provide discovery.
So the hyperbolas that I see in this thread and elsewhere, are NOT coming from my side...

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

So the DA now has a[n identical] copy of the citation that the defendant has in his possession. What about the other items that are in the possession of the LEA?

---

The DA is free to ignore an IDR for whatever reason. The courts have determined items in the possession of the LEA are within the DA's control for purposes of PC 1054, et seq. and the DA won't ignore an order to comply.

When I have seen these orders, they have been directed from the court to the agency holding the discovery material. In other words, the court orders the agency to provide the items in question, not the DA. Now, that may vary in some places, but since it makes sense to compel discovery from the agency that actually holds the items than from an office that is not part of the loop, then it would seem most expedient to order it from the agency. I have yet to ever see such an order come through the DA via the court. At least not in the counties where I have worked.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Please enlighten me with statue or case law which, other than relief from attendance in court, defines the prosecutor's role in an infraction case to be any different than misdemeanors?

---

I think you meant statute... :D

Speaking of proof... case law or statutory or both, how about some sort of direction that shows how your recommendation for a motion to dismiss for "failure to prosecute" has any legal merit whatsoever!!

In response to your request regarding the role of the prosecutor in a traffic infraction case versus that in a misdemeanor, and though I am not about to go into the entire California legislative history, I can tell you that it all started on January 1, 1969 when laws were enacted where a new classification of a criminal act referred to as an “infraction” was introduced. While an infraction still maintained some aspects of a criminal charge ( PC 19.7. Except as otherwise provided by law, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions including, but not limited to, powers of peace officers, jurisdiction of courts, periods for commencing action and for bringing a case to trial and burden of proof.), there were some aspects that were removed including but not limited to the right to a jury trial and the services of a public defender if/when needed (see PC 19.6). Some people claim that this was the state's attempt to circumvent the rights of the people, although I would guess that streamlining the process, thereby making it more cost efficient for the state and a lesser burden for the people (they don't have to face a DA in court and they do not face a criminal charge to deal with) played a major role in the decision to make that change.

So to a degree, the proof is plenty although none of it is specific enough to directly address the topic of who is responsible for discovery in a traffic infraction case or what role, if any, the prosecutor must play in a case involving a misdemeanor charge versus what he should play in an infraction charge. This is in spite of the fact that the PC sections relating to criminal discovery have indeed been amended since 1969 and yet no changes were made to specifically address the differences in the role the DA/CA must play between infractions and misdemeanors. Maybe the legislature left it up to the courts to more specifically define the prosecutor's role, and although it seems that this did happen with regards to misdemeanors (by virtue of the cases you cited as well as others), yet I am not aware of anyspecific definitions that relate to infraction matters. Don't ask me why!!!

Having said that, I offer the following citation(s):

From In re Dennis B., 557 P. 2d 514 - Cal: Supreme Court 1976:

Quote:

---

Quoting In re Dennis B.

---

... the state's substantial interest in maintaining the summary nature of minor motor vehicle violation proceedings would be impaired by requiring the prosecution to ascertain for each infraction the possibility of further criminal proceedings. The chief reason for classifying some prohibited acts as infractions is to facilitate their swift disposition. (People v. Battle (1975) 50 Cal. App.3d Supp. 1, 7 [123 Cal. Rptr. 636].) Unconstrained by the more stringent procedural requirements of a major criminal trial, municipal courts and prosecutors are free to develop innovative procedures to expedite traffic cases.

---

My guess is that the last statement there (re: innovative procedures) is the basis for what Carl referred to up top when he described the filing procedure for a citation:

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Since CA state law requires law enforcement to send the citation to the court - bypassing any city or county prosecutor - then it stands to reason that the prosecutor is not necessarily going to have any knowledge of discovery information with regards to most traffic citations.

---

Additionally, and in reference to my comment:

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

And do you seriously think that you'll find one judge in the entire state who would go out on a limb and issue an order to compel a prosecutor to drop the stacks of misdemeanor and felony files only to spend time chasing after documents that (may be not for 88s) more often than not can be obtained by other means?

---

... I offer the following (also from In re Dennis B.):

Quote:

---

Quoting In re Dennis B.

---

This type of flexibility benefits all parties: defendants gain a swift and inexpensive disposition of their cases without risk of major penalties; and the prosecution, the court system, and ultimately the public benefit because judicial and law enforcement resources are freed to concentrate on serious criminal behavior. It is obvious that many innovations in court procedure would be jeopardized if district attorneys were charged with the responsibility of combing through 3 million infractions each year to find those few that might additionally involve more serious offenses.

---

So you're not going to get very far suggesting that a court, when issuing an order to comply with a discovery request, will direct the same to the DA's office rather then to the LEA...

Furthermore, and while you claim that Carlucci only referred to the prosecutor's presence at the trial but did not address his other responsibilities, I'll offer that the above two citations I posted from "In Re: Dennis B" were also cited in Carlucci by the court, after which then the court added:

Quote:

---

Quoting People v. Carlucci

---

The courts and the Legislature have not been unaware of the penalties that may attach to an individual who is found guilty of a traffic infraction. The driver may lose his driving privileges. He may be obliged to pay higher insurance rates or be denied insurance altogether. In addition, the fines which are levied by the traffic courts, while relatively insignificant in terms of possible penalties for violations of the criminal statutes, may constitute a very real hardship for some of those obliged to pay. However, with these considerations before them, the courts and the Legislature have repeatedly evidenced their determination to keep the processing of traffic infractions free from the procedural intricacies that characterize more serious criminal proceedings.

---

Unless you're going to argue that "procedural intricacies" only refers to relieving the prosecutor from having to appear in court and not to the prosecutor's role in general, it would follow that a court is not likely to hold the prosecutor as the party responsible for providing items that are neither in their possession nor under their control.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

If you read the case law above, the definitions as the COURTS construe them are pretty clear and cited authoritatively would certainly result in the granting of any motion to compel.

---

Again, the case law citations you offered are for criminal cases where the DA was involved in prosecuting the case, they had full knowledge, open access, and an active roll in every proceeding in each case... Fails in comparison to a traffic infraction case where the prosecutor's first knowledge of anything related to the case came through the defendant's request for discovery!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

IIRC, the process at the relevant Traffic Division is to ask the clerk for the first free space on the motion calendar, prepare a motion for on or after that date, serve it on the DA and then file it with the court with proof of service to the DA. If the first free date is AFTER your trial is scheduled, I was informed it will be heard ON the day of the trial. As for LA County, I will try to get authoritative info soon.

---

OK, thanks for the brief version... I guess we'll wait to see how that plays out in today's world, and specifically, how it applies to this thread with it being in L.A. County!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

You have your cases crossed...the officer DID show up at trial but it was dismissed because of a technicality in the definition of "local street" in 22350.

---

In all honesty, after reading that the guy mailed his IDR to the court and expected the court to forward his request to the DA, rather than him mailing it to the DA... And that he later handed a copy of his request to a DDA (while he was out by the dumpdsters smoking a cigar), and that this -as far as he was concerned- was proper service and this way "they couldn't weasel out"... I stopped reading the detailed links. Instead, I simply scrolled to the bottom of the main page, read something about the trial being scheduled for 11/7 and that he officer had a class to attend on that date!

Even with that said, I still don't see any reference to a dismissal because of a definition of local street (which by the way, is not defined in 22350, instead, it is defined in 40802).

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

It also looks like you have your posts crossed. Here's the portion of my reply to OP you're going on about:



1. I clearly tell him any motions, etc. will happen AFTER the TBD.
2. The "lack of prosecution" is based solely on the statement in the letter from the DA's office: the DA is not the prosecuting attorney. It has nothing to do with failure to provide discovery.
3. I tell the OP to have a motion to compel in his back pocket.

---

No, I don't have my posts crossed!

And you can try and twist it however which way you want. At the end of the day, a few FACTS still remain:
1) The DA's response came as a result of a discovery request by the defendant;
2) The DA does not prosecute traffic infraction cases, so a statement that he is not the prosecuting attorney is not that big of a stretch;
3) Even with #2 above, a "failure to prosecute" argument has no legal basis or merit and is only likely to result in a waste of time for everyone involved. Instead, a motion to compel should be in the OP's front pocket, not back pocket.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

So the hyperbolas that I see in this thread and elsewhere, are NOT coming from my side...

---

Is there an echo in here!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

The DA is free to ignore an IDR for whatever reason. The courts have determined items in the possession of the LEA are within the DA's control for purposes of PC 1054, et seq. and the DA won't ignore an order to comply.

---

And again, in light of the citations I posted above, the court is not likely to issue an order to comply to the DA, it would make more sense, would be more in line with most orders I've seen/heard of and it would be in everyone's best interest (the state saves resources and the defendant gets his info faster) to issue such order directly to the LEA. Although at the end of the day, it makes no difference who it comes from, as long as it comes... But even then, I am not sure how big a factor it will be considering that this is a 22349 citation and discovery is not likely to reveal any big issues for the defendant to work with!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

When I have seen these orders, they have been directed from the court to the agency holding the discovery material.

---

That makes perfect sense, thanks for clarifying. And the process certainly works, because I doubt the LEA would ignore the order (assuming they had blown off the letter from the defendant in the first place).

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

In response to your request regarding the role of the prosecutor in a traffic infraction case versus that in a misdemeanor, and though I am not about to go into the entire California legislative history, I can tell you that it all started on January 1, 1969...

---

Thanks for history and related info, very informative. I don't think this will be settled either way until we have case law. As you explained (and Carl verifies above), any orders would most probably be to the LEA and as long as I got what I wanted, it wouldn't matter who it came from.

Please note also that the my original post was from about two weeks ago...knowing what I know now, I wouldn't make "lack of prosecution" my first recommendation. :) I'd still love to know a court's thoughts, on the record, to that form letter from the LA DA.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

I'd still love to know a court's thoughts, on the record, to that form letter from the LA DA.

---

My guess is that the judge will refrain from addressing the letter or any of its contents. What would be the point? If the officer has the requested documents, then he will order that copies are given to the defendant. Problem solved!

And speaking of the "documents" requested by the defendant (copied and pasted from OPs post):
1) A list of all witnesses for the prosecution.
2) A copy of all records regarding the maintenance and calibration of the speedometer used in this case;
3) A copy of all of Officer J. Bach’s notes on this case including copies of the front and back of the officer’s copy of the ticket.

It is obvious by that point that the officer is the only witness, so item (1) is covered; a copy of item (3) will be provided, and hopefully, for the OP's sake, it is not written in code... As for the calibration certificate, OP should keep in mind that there is no statutory requirement for the officer to present one (see People v. Lowe, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 249 - Cal: Appellate Div., Superior 2002), though I suspect he will.

Thanks for the ongoing debate, a lot of useful information and I respect everyone's opinions. I have kept tabs on the replies although I did not reply because I did not have anything useful to add till now.Here is the update:
1. I submitted the TBD.
2. The court found me guilty.
3. I have 20 days to file the TR220 form, 10 days are left (I do not know what to fill out in Section 3 where it states: "I am dissatisfied with the court’s decision. I request a new trial (trial de novo) for the following violations (specify):")
4. I received a Notice of Correction and Proof of Service form, The officer originally got my Date of birth wrong. But on the correction the Officer is again wrong with the Date of Birth. So the correction to the wrong date is still incorrect. He signed it with the general phrase "I declare under penalty of Perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct."
5. I received discovery from CHP a couple weeks ago (much longer than 20 days) and I received another letter from the DA last week.
It reads:
In a letter received by this Department, you requested discovery concerning a traffic infraction (10606LQ). Government Code section 26500 provides that "The district attorney is the public prosecutor, except as otherwise provided by law. The public prosecutor shall attend the courts, and within his or her discretion shall initiate and conduct on behalf of the people all prosecutions for public offenses." That provision, however, has been construed to permit the District Attorney, as is the policy in Los Angeles County, not to appear on traffic infraction matters.
The issue first arose in the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in People v. Carlucci (1979) 23 Ca1.3d 249, 251-252, where two Los Angeles County traffic infraction defendants challenged trials that were conducted in the absence of a prosecutor. The Court found that a defendant's right to due process is not violated where a traffic infraction trial is conducted "without a prosecuting attorney in attendance if the conduct of the court, including its questioning of witnesses, is fair and properly limited in scope." (Id. at p. 255.) The Court said one reason for this, was that traffic infraction trials should be "simplified and expeditious procedures..." (Id. at p. 257.) In fact, the court noted that defendants might be disadvantaged by having to face a "professional adversary" if a prosecutor were required to participate. (Id. at p. 258, see Pen. Code, § 19.6 [prohibiting appointment of defense counsel for infraction proceedings].)
Following the decision in Carlucci, the issue arose as to whether or not the District Attorney could be compelled pursuant to Government Code section 26500, the section you cited, to pursue infraction matters. The issue was first considered by the Sacramento County Superior Court in People v. Daggett (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 6, which held that a prosecutor, under Government Code section 26500 has discretion not to appear on traffic infraction cases. This holding was subsequently adopted by the Court of Appeal in People ex rel. Kottmeier v. Municipal Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 602, 610, which held a prosecutor's decision not to participate in infraction proceedings "is not forbidden by Government Code section 26500." (See also, 75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 51, 51 (1992) [concluding that then municipal court, now superior court, may not require a deputy district attorney to attend "arraignment proceedings, applications for bail, and hearings on diversion eligibility". Based on the decision in Carlucci, Daggett and Kottmeier, the Los Angeles County District Attorney adopted a policy of not appearing on traffic infraction matters. Consequently, we are not the proper party to process your discovery request. Instead, we suggest you send your request to the issuing agency.

My questions:
1. What do I fill out in section 3: "I am dissatisfied with the court’s decision. I request a new trial (trial de novo) for the following violations (specify):"
2. Should I go about a motion, I already know ThatGuy’s response will be no, but wondering what quirkyquark thinks.
3. What’s up with the constant mistake of the birthdate…any recourse (not trying to offend anyone) but to say that the cop was incompetent in reading a license and then did not run the license number again to find the correct date?