Now this is a tough case. Although the State Supreme Court’s vote was unanimous, the Court
took a great deal of time, as in more than two and a half years to mull over
this matter and reach its decision.
This very sensitive issue pertains to the disclosure
of witnesses and the possible repercussions therefrom.
Let me start by indicating that, unfortunately, often
people who witness gangland slayings end up being killed before the trial takes
place. There is then no one left to
testify against the gang member, and he goes free. The issue here is whether or not prosecutors must be forced to
disclose the names of witnesses to the defense in advance of the trial. On the one hand, the prosecutors’ want to
protect the witnesses from reprisal, however the defense needs to have an
opportunity to investigate the background of the witnesses and to have an
investigator speak to the witnesses in order to properly prepare for trial.
The Court voted 7-0 that testimony from an anonymous
witness “undermines a defendant’s Constitutional right to confront his
accuser.” This actually was a
compromise verdict in that while prosecutors were disappointed, it was not a
clear victory for the defense, for it permits the trial judge to keep the names
of witnesses from defense attorneys until the trial starts. Interestingly, the ruling also allows trial
court judges to, if they wish, give the witness names to the lawyer of the
individual charged, while instructing the lawyer to not turn over the names of
the witnesses to his client. Nothing
like asking an attorney to keep something from the person he is supposed to
represent.
This matter began in 1997 where a Mr. Alvarado and a
Mr. Lopez are each awaiting trial for the first degree murder of prison inmate
Jose Uribe. In their cases, Superior
Court Judge Robert Perry ruled that the defense could never learn the
names of the three County Jail inmates who were the chief witnesses for the
prosecution, as they allegedly witnessed the murder. This ruling would have created a situation in which the witnesses
would have appeared and testified, and no one from the defense would ever have
known who they were. Judge Perry issued
this order after being warned by prosecutors that a well-known prison gang
known as the Mexican Mafia would find them and kill them in jail if their
identities became known. The defense
appealed this ruling and the Second District Court of Appeal voted two to one
to uphold Judge Perry’s order. The
defense then appealed to the State Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court
reversed, as Chief Justice Ronald George wrote: “Whenever non-disclosure of a
witness’ identity will prevent the effective investigation and cross-examination
of a crucial witness, the confrontation clause precludes the prosecution from
relying on the witness’ testimony at trial while refusing to disclose the
witness’ identity. “ I fully agree with this, however, disclosing the names of
the witnesses when the trial is about to commence is going to make it very
difficult for the defense to do a thorough investigation. What the Court appears to be trying to do
here is balance the competing needs of the safety of the witnesses, and the
need for the defense to be able to effectively prepare its case and
cross-examine key witnesses. Justice
George further indicated that the secreting of witnesses would “effectively
emasculate the right of cross-examination itself,” however, he acknowledged the
Court was “keenly aware of the problem of witness intimidation” (Not to mention witness murdering).
This ruling did not suit the DA, who indicated that
as soon as the witness names become known, they will be killed. The DA indicated that if the witness names
are disclosed before, during, or after the trial, the Mexican Mafia will find
them and kill them, either to prevent them from testifying or as revenge for
their having testified.
This opinion is being viewed as not being the most
clear opinion ever put forth by the State Supreme Court due to the question of
whether or not defense attorneys will obtain witness names in time to do a
competent pre-trial investigation.
Needless to say, in a murder case, you want to be able to do as thorough
an investigation as possible, including determining whether or not witnesses
who are going to testify against your client have criminal records. It turns out in the case of Mr. Alvarado,
one of the jailhouse witnesses does have a prior murder conviction.
I really feel for the State Supreme Court on this
one. This is a situation where they are
damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
In the real world, people get intimidated and/or killed in situations
such as this if they are to be witnesses.
Also in the real world, defendants are entitled to a vigorous defense,
and that includes being able to effectively cross-examine and investigate all
witnesses who are planning to testify against them. No one wants witnesses killed and no one wants defendants to not
get a fair trial. The Supreme Court
appears to have done the best it can to try to forge a middle road, although it
appears as if further rulings will be needed on this issue to clarify exactly
what this ruling means on a case-by-case basis.