Smith completed his report, he sent it to Valla and finance manager before the IAR’s report ultimately its way to the District While Smith later testified at “found Attorney.” the preliminary hearing for the prosecution, he did not consider his work to be for or at the direction of the prosecution; rather, he worked independently for IAR. Nor did deputy district attorney Nardi understand Smith to be part of the team, prosecution’s much less exert the degree of control, direction or assistance over his work as would be necessary to trigger the obligations under Given this Brady. prosecution’s disclosure record, we conclude the fact that law enforcement may have obtained more specialized information and expertise from the crime victim, IAR, in this case than it would have in a more ordinary criminal case does not, without more, prove Valla and the prosecution were for purposes of (See 920 F.Supp.2d at Brady. Meregildo, supra, “team members” p. its core, members of the team perform investigative duties and make strategic 441 [“At decisions about the prosecution of the case”].) Finally, with respect to request for information from the district Valla’s attorney’s office about the crimes with which they intended to charge to defendant, the record reflects that Valla made this request in order to prepare questions regarding the elements of these crimes for already-scheduled deposition in the civil matter. It does defendant’s not, to the contrary, reflect investigation of defendant at the direction of or on Valla’s behalf of the prosecution in this criminal matter. Further, according to the record, in response to request, the police merely provided the firm with two citations to Valla’s Penal Code provisions. While it is true that Valla later gave law enforcement a copy of deposition transcript with certain portions underlined, there is no evidence defendant’s that Valla asked any question during deposition at the direction of the police, defendant’s or shared or highlighted deposition testimony for any reason other than its own preparation in the civil matter. As such, the record establishes no more than that Valla, attorney of record for IAR in a civil lawsuit against defendant, was discharging its fiduciary duty to thoroughly investigate the facts and seek appropriate legal redress on behalf of its client rather than working on behalf, and as an agent, of the government to prosecute defendant in the criminal realm.
Smith completed his report, he sent it to Valla and IAR’s finance manager before the report ultimately “found its way to the District Attorney.” While Smith later testified at the preliminary hearing for the prosecution, he did not consider his work to be for or at the direction of the prosecution; rather, he worked independently for IAR. Nor did deputy district attorney Nardi understand Smith to be part of the prosecution’s team, much less exert the degree of control, direction or assistance over his work as would be necessary to trigger the prosecution’s disclosure obligations under Brady. Given this record, we conclude the fact that law enforcement may have obtained more specialized information and expertise from the crime victim, IAR, in this case than it would have in a more ordinary criminal case does not, without more, prove Valla and the prosecution were “team members” for purposes of Brady. (See Meregildo, supra, 920 F.Supp.2d at p. 441 [“At its core, members of the team perform investigative duties and make strategic decisions about the prosecution of the case”].) Finally, with respect to Valla’s request for information from the district attorney’s office about the crimes with which they intended to charge to defendant, the record reflects that Valla made this request in order to prepare questions regarding the elements of these crimes for defendant’s already-scheduled deposition in the civil matter. It does not, to the contrary, reflect Valla’s investigation of defendant at the direction of or on behalf of the prosecution in this criminal matter. Further, according to the record, in response to Valla’s request, the police merely provided the firm with two citations to Penal Code provisions. While it is true that Valla later gave law enforcement a copy of defendant’s deposition transcript with certain portions underlined, there is no evidence that Valla asked any question during defendant’s deposition at the direction of the police, or shared or highlighted deposition testimony for any reason other than its own preparation in the civil matter. As such, the record establishes no more than that Valla, attorney of record for IAR in a civil lawsuit against defendant, was discharging its fiduciary duty to thoroughly investigate the facts and seek appropriate legal redress on behalf of its client rather than working on behalf, and as an agent, of the government to prosecute defendant in the criminal realm.
A149087M.DOCX