Northup

People v. Northup

Good Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 811·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4118·2002 Daily Journal DAR 5417·98 Cal. App. 4th 549·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4277
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 16, 2002B150933California5,963 words

Opinion

Opinion

CROSKEY, Acting P.J.

In Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (Brady) and its progeny, the United States Supreme Court concluded that prosecutors have a duty to disclose to a defendant any evidence in their possession which is favorable to the defendant and material to guilt or punishment. Today, in a case involving a defendant's claimed right to receive such allegedly favorable information from a peace officer's personnel file, we hold no Brady violation occurred because of any failure by the People (1) to determine whether such evidence existed or (2) to disclose the same to the defendant, Jerry Northup. First, Northup failed to meet his burden of showing that the files of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department contained any such evidence. Second, any such evidence in those files was not, for purposes of Brady , possessed by the People, that is, it was not possessed by an agency that was "acting on the government's behalf in the criminal case against Northup. For each of these two reasons, the record fails to demonstrate that any Brady violation occurred.

Jerry Northup appeals from the judgment entered following his jury conviction for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.