Alvarado v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 10 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | B103561,Nos. B103406,s. B103406 |
| Citation | 52 Cal.App.4th 939,60 Cal.Rptr.2d 854 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Previously published at 52 Cal.App.4th 939 52 Cal.App.4th 939, 65 USLW 2555, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 985, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1417 Joaquin ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent, The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. Jorge LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent, The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. |
Klein & Crain and Michael M. Crain, Santa Monica, Richard H. Millard, Tara Selver, Los Angeles, and Robert S. Gerstein, Santa Monica, for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Gil Garcetti, District Attorney, Brent Riggs and Brentford J. Ferreira, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.
How far will the justice system go to try to protect the life of a witness who has been threatened with death? In this murder prosecution, the trial court determined that the defense would be denied discovery of the identities of three witnesses, and rejected the defense's request for photographs of the witnesses. We conclude the trial court was correct, even though the witnesses are crucial to the prosecution's case and one of the two defendants has not been linked to the death threats. The defense has been provided all other discovery concerning the witnesses, including their grand jury testimony and criminal histories. The witnesses will be produced before trial for interviews. They will testify at trial in the presence of the defendants, without disguises.
We agree with defendants that this limitation on discovery will significantly hamper their defense efforts, and we analyze the issue from that perspective. But we determine that when a witness' life is at stake, an appropriate balance can be struck, with the judicial system doing its best to assure a defendant a fair trial under the circumstances while at the same time endeavoring to protect the witness.
Our dissenting colleague has chosen to elevate procedure over the witnesses' welfare. We decline to adopt a position which purports to determine that the lives of some witnesses are more valuable than those of others. We reject the fortuity of saying to one witness that we will protect him because he is peripheral while turning our backs on another because he is central. We find illogical the premise that pure happenstance determines whether we will endeavor to protect one person (e.g., the peripheral witness or the witness whose death threats can be tied to a defendant) and abandon another person (e.g., the crucial witness or one whose death threats cannot be tied to a defendant). We do not purport to arrogate unto ourselves the power to place relative values on the lives of threatened witnesses.
Our analysis leads us to conclude that the crucial factor to be determined by the trial court is whether a witness has been threatened and is actually in mortal danger. Once a trial court has so determined on the basis of sufficient evidence, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny to the defense photographs of the witness or the witness' true name.
We do not reach the question of whether, under such circumstances, it would be an abuse to give the defense such information. We leave resolution of that issue to another time and another case. Nor do we reach the question of whether a trial court may deny to the defense more than a photograph and the witness' true name. We confine ourselves to the circumstances before us. 1
Defendants Joaquin Alvarado and Jorge Lopez are charged with murdering Jose Uribe. The murder occurred in Los Angeles County Jail while all three men were inmates. According to the evidence before the trial court, the Mexican Mafia prison gang ordered Uribe killed because he was an informant or "snitch." Alvarado and Lopez are not Mexican Mafia members, but murdered Uribe to curry favor with, and perhaps gain membership in, the gang. Three other jail inmates were the only eyewitnesses to the murder.
Uribe was murdered on February 6, 1993. He was beaten and stabbed 37 times with a contraband prison knife known as a shank. A complaint charging Alvarado, Lopez, and Frank Marquez with Uribe's murder was filed on August 13, 1993. 2 The prosecution provided discovery to the defense from which identifying information for its three crucial witnesses was deleted. The magistrate ordered that information disclosed to the defense eight weeks before the preliminary hearing.
Instead, the prosecution took the case to the grand jury, which returned an indictment on August 23, 1994. Alvarado is charged with murder with the special circumstance that he previously committed another murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty against Alvarado. Lopez is charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and possessing a shank while in custody on three other occasions unrelated to this case. The prosecution provided defendants with transcripts of the grand jury proceedings. In those transcripts, the three inmate eyewitnesses are identified only as witnesses 1, 2, and 3.
According to the transcript, Uribe was housed in cell 10 of a particular jail module and row. When Uribe was murdered, the cells on that row generally housed eight inmates. Uribe was murdered in his cell during a noon lunch period.
Witness 2 told the grand jury that, on the morning of Uribe's murder, Marquez, a jail trustee, came to cell 11 where witness 2 was housed. Marquez spoke to some of witness 2's cellmates in Spanish. Although witness 2 is not Hispanic, he understood some Spanish and believed Marquez said a snitch was going to be dealt with and they should stay away from cell 10. About ten minutes later, witness 2 heard a black trustee tell some black inmates to stay away from the end of the row where cell 10 was located. Based on these statements and other inmates' actions, witness 2 knew no one was to go near cell 10. Nonetheless, witness 2 stayed alone in his cell around noon instead of going to lunch because he wanted to eat food he had bought that morning at the commissary.
Around noon, witness 2 saw Alvarado and Lopez, who were not assigned to cell 10, enter that cell with another inmate who was housed there. Witness 2 then heard a fight inside cell 10 and words about being a snitch. Other inmates made noise to drown Uribe's cries. When other inmates returned from lunch, witness 2 saw Lopez give his bloody shirt to Marquez outside cell 10. Witness 2 also saw a bloody body under a bed inside cell 10. Marquez told witness 2 to return to his cell because the matter did not involve Two days after the murder, witness 2 was shown photos of inmates who had been in the area. Witness 2 identified Lopez, Marquez, and a third inmate as the second person who entered cell 10 with Lopez. Alvarado's picture was not in the group. Later, witness 2 identified Alvarado's picture as the second man who accompanied Lopez, and said his earlier identification of the third inmate was mistaken.
him. Witness 2 knew Lopez and Marquez from earlier contact.
Witness 1 testified that on the day of the murders he was housed in cell 12. Although also not Hispanic, witness 1 understood some Spanish. Witness 1 heard Marquez ask one of his Hispanic cell mates for some extra jail clothing and say something about a snitch. Witness 1 gave Marquez his shirt, hoping to curry favor with Hispanic inmates. Witness 1 stayed alone in his cell during lunch because he was tired and felt like sleeping. Witness 1 saw a group of five inmates, including Alvarado and Lopez, near his cell. He then heard a fight, but no covering noise, and saw the same group of five inmates leave the area.
Witness 1 identified Marquez' photo two days after the murder, but six months later identified someone else as the trustee to whom he gave his shirt. Witness 1 told the grand jury Alvarado and Lopez were in the group of five inmates he saw near his cell, although he admitted confusion regarding his earlier identification of their photos. Witness 1 also testified that the day before his testimony, he was put into the same jail cell as Alvarado, who threatened to harm him if he testified.
Witness 3, a jail trustee like Marquez, testified he was assigned to sweep the module containing cells 10-12. On the morning of the murder, witness 3 saw Marquez wrap a shank inside a shirt and give it to another Hispanic inmate. After lunch, witness 3 saw Marquez take a shirt from someone on the same row.
The prosecution provided the defense with the grand jury transcripts and all other information about the case and the witnesses, including their criminal histories, except the names and photographs of witnesses 1-3. The prosecution also agreed to disclose any gang nicknames used by the witnesses. The defense continued to seek the witnesses' true names and photographs. Although the prosecution is required to disclose, thirty days before trial, the names and addresses of all witnesses to be called at trial (Pen.Code, §§ 1054.1, subd. (a); 1054.7), 3 the prosecution sought a protective order permitting the permanent nondisclosure of the identities and photographs of witnesses 1-3 because such disclosure to defendants or their attorneys would place the witnesses' lives in danger. (§ 1054.7.)
Over defendants' objections, the trial court held a series of in camera hearings, from which the defense was excluded, to permit the prosecution to demonstrate good cause why disclosure of witnesses 1-3's names and photos should be denied. These hearings were authorized by section 1054.7, which provides in relevant part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alvarado v. Los Angeles County Superior Court (People)
...COURT, Respondent, PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. No. S059827. Supreme Court of California. May 14, 1997. Prior report: Cal.App., 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 854. Petition for review GEORGE, C.J., and MOSK, KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN and BROWN, JJ., concur. ...