legal news


Register | Forgot Password

THE PEOPLE v. ANDREW VASQUEZ Part III

THE PEOPLE v. ANDREW VASQUEZ Part III
07:17:2006

THE PEOPLE v. ANDREW VASQUEZ





Filed 7/10/06





IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA





THE PEOPLE, )


)


Plaintiff and Respondent, )


) S128854


v. )


) Ct.App. 2/7 B159379


ANDREW VASQUEZ et al., )


) Los Angeles County


Defendants and Appellants. ) Super. Ct. No. BA200494


___________ )


Story continue from Part II ………





The strongest argument for considering the participation of a conflicted prosecutor to be structural error is the third one relied upon in Vuitton, supra, 481 U.S. at pages 812-813, and echoed by a number of other cases (see fn. 10, ante): that the potential effects of the error pervade the proceedings, possibly including any of the discretionary decisions the prosecutor makes from charging to sentence recommendation, and themselves could affect the composition of the record, making it practically impossible to trace the error's prejudicial effects. This is obviously true in a certain respect: the reasons for a prosecutor's discretionary decisions rarely appear in the record, and one often cannot know what different decisions a nonconflicted prosecutor would have made.


Yet sometimes defendants are able to show actual prejudice, or at least a strong probability of actual unfair treatment, as, for example, in Ganger, where there was evidence the prosecutor â€





Description Trial court erred in refusing defendant's request to recuse district attorney's office where defendant's mother had been an administrator in the district attorney's office for about 13 years and her husband, defendant's stepfather, had been employed as a deputy district attorney for same period.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale