Philibosian v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 15, 1983 No. B001808Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court must vacate an order granting use immunity to a witness in a civil action when the prosecuting agency objects, as the prosecutor's declaration of potential interference with criminal prosecution is conclusive and not subject to judicial review.

Issues

Whether a trial court may grant use immunity to a witness in a civil action over the objection of a prosecuting agency.
Whether a trial court may assess the validity or justification of a prosecutor's objection to a grant of immunity.

Disposition. granted

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court must treat such an objection and declaration as conclusively establishing that an immunity order as described in the notice cannot be issued because it would or might unduly hamper criminal prosecution of the witness.”

“The court cannot require the objecting prosecutor to amplify or justify the submitted declaration nor undertake to assess the nature or degree of the impact the immunity grant would have upon prosecutorial functions.”

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

claiming that the respondent superior court erred in granting immunity to a witness in a civil action over petitioner’s objection.

In the underlying action, Coalition Against Police Abuse, etc., et al. v. Board of Police Commissioners, etc., et al., plaintiff real parties in interest (plaintiffs) challenge the Los Angeles Police Department’s surveillance and its related intelligence gathering program against suspect political or ganizations and individuals. In January 1983, it was discovered that Detective Jay Paul had maintained 180 boxes of such intelligence reports and other documents in a garage in Long Beach off Police Department property. Respondent court ordered all these documents (except those privileged as official information under Evid. Code, § 1040) to be produced to plaintiffs. Detective Paul had been extensively questioned by the Police Department Internal Affairs Division concerning his possession of these documents and plaintiffs have received the tapes and transcripts of these interviews.

[940]

In June 1983, plaintiffs deposed Detective Paul. He declined to answer relying on his privilege against self-incrimination. Plaintiffs, on October 11, 1983, moved for an order granting Detective Paul immunity against the use and derivative use of his testimony. Petitioner opposed the motion. On October 18, 1983, respondent court granted it. This petition to revoke and vacate the order followed. We grant the petition and issue the writ.

Daly

Superior Court

(1977) 19 Cal.3d 132 [137 Cal.Rptr. 14, 560 P.2d 1193], defendants in a civil action refused to respond to discovery for fear of future prosecutions. Plaintiffs moved to extinguish the claimed privilege with a grant of immunity. The motion was denied and plaintiffs petitioned for a writ. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and unanimously held that prosecution agencies have an interest in such grants of immunity which must be protected. The court set out a procedure by which prosecuting agencies must be notified of immunity requests to enable prosecutors to have an opportunity to object to the granting of immunity.

Philibosian v. Superior Court

AI Brief

ROTH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief