People v. Super. Ct. (Johnson)

In City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th, [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 202 , 52 P.3d 129 ] (City of Los Angeles)? we considered the interplay between the prosecution’s constitutional duty under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 215 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 ] (Brady) and its progeny, and statutory procedures by which the parties can seek discovery of information in confidential peace officer personnel records. We do so again.

Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83 , generally obligates the prosecution to disclose to the defense material evidence favorable to the defendant. Separately, the Legislature has enacted procedures to implement the decision of Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 522 P.2d 305 ] (Pitchess) that allow criminal defendants to seek discovery from the court of potentially exculpatory information located in otherwise confidential peace officer personnel records. If a party bringing what is commonly called a Pitchess motion makes a threshold showing, the court must review the records in camera and disclose to that party any information they contain that is material to the underlying case. (See Evid. Code, §§ 1043,…