Release Date:  March 31, 2008
Contact:  Michael Rushford
(916) 446-0345

The California Supreme Court will hear oral argument Tuesday regarding an appellate court ruling which disqualified a large part of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office for trying to protect the confidential medical and psychotherapy records of a child molestation victim.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has filed argument in People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) to encourage a decision overturning the lower court.

The case involves charges brought against a juvenile, Humberto S., for the continuous sexual abuse of his eight-year-old niece Samantha.  Prior to trial, Humberto’s defense attorney asked the court to provide him with the confidential records of Samantha’s medical and psychological history.  The Los Angeles District Attorney moved to block the defendant’s access to the records.  At a hearing to resolve the dispute, the judge asked Samantha’s parents for consent to turn over the records.  The father, who is the defendant’s brother, agreed to give the defense access to his daughter’s records.  The mother was opposed to this.  Due to the apparent conflict of interest regarding the father and disagreement with the little girl’s mother, the prosecutor asked the court to appoint an attorney to protect Samantha’s interests. 

The Court denied the prosecutor’s request and ruled that the consent of the victim’s father was sufficient to release her confidential records to the defense.  The state Court of Appeal refused to consider the prosecutor’s appeal of that ruling. 

The defense then moved to disqualify the prosecutor, arguing that because he was trying to protect the rights of the victim, he was guilty of a conflict of interest.  The judge agreed, ruling to disqualify him and, because he had talked about the case with his colleagues, all of the approximately 100 other deputies serving in the Compton branch of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office were also disqualified.

Once again, the Court of Appeal rejected the District Attorney’s appeal, announcing that the disqualification was necessary because the prosecutor was attempting “to represent the victim’s interest in protecting her privacy that exceeded the exercise of balanced discretion necessary to ensure a just and fair trial.”

When the California Supreme Court agreed to review the appellate court ruling, CJLF joined the case.  In a scholarly amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, the Foundation argues that the lower courts ruled improperly and in violation of California law regarding the protection of confidential records.  In addition, the brief encourages a precedent-setting decision which makes it clear that the District Attorney is well within his authority to protect the interests of the victim in a case he is prosecuting. 

“The rulings of the lower courts in this case misinterpreted the duties of the District Attorney and their own obligation to respect the rights and interests of crime victims,” said CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.  “We are encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the District Attorney’s appeal and hope that their holding will correct these serious mistakes,” he added.