GOLDSTEIN v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County

• Decision Date: 17 November 2008
• Docket Number: No. S155944.,S155944.
• Citation: 195 P.3d 588,85 Cal.Rptr.3d 213,45 Cal.4th 218
• Parties: Thomas Lee GOLDSTEIN, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Grand Jury of Los Angeles County, et al., Real Parties in Interest.
• Court: California Supreme Court

45 Cal.4th 218

195 P.3d 588

85 Cal.Rptr.3d 213

Thomas Lee GOLDSTEIN, Petitioner,

v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent;Grand Jury of Los Angeles County, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

No. S155944.

Supreme Court of California

Nov. 17, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Kaye, McLane & Bednarski, Ronald O. Kaye, David S. McLane, Marilyn E. Bednarski, Pasadena, and Matthew N. Sirolly, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, and Gordon W. Trask, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles County Grand Jury.

Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart, John J. Collins, Tomas A. Guterres, Douglas Fee and Eric C. Brown, South Pasadena, for Real Parties in Interest County of Los Angeles, John Van de Kamp and Curt Livesay.

CORRIGAN, J.

Here we hold that California courts do not have a broad inherent power to order disclosure of grand jury materials to private litigants. In Daily Journal Corp. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1117, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 979 P.2d 982 ( Daily Journal ), this court ruled that “the superior court's powers to disclose grand jury testimony are only those which the Legislature has deemed appropriate.” ( Id. at p. 1128, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 979 P.2d 982.) “[I]f superior courts could disclose materials based only on their inherent powers, the statutory rules governing disclosure of grand jury testimony would be swallowed up in that large exception.” ( Ibid.)

In this case, the Court of Appeal decided that courts have inherent power to order disclosure of grand jury materials to a private litigant, in the interests of justice. The court distinguished Daily Journal on the basis that it involved disclosure to the public. We reverse. The Legislature has authorized limited disclosure of grand jury materials to private parties, and the Court of Appeal's holding creates a broad exception that would swallow the statutory rules, just as in Daily Journal.

The Court of Appeal also held that no statute authorized the disclosure of grand jury materials to petitioner Thomas Lee Goldstein. However, Penal Code section 924.2 does permit the disclosure of grand jury testimony to determine whether it is consistent with a witness's subsequent testimony. ¹ Goldstein may be able to obtain limited releases of grand jury transcripts under this provision.

BACKGROUND

In 1979 Goldstein was an engineering student and Marine Corps veteran with no criminal history. He became a murder suspect after an eyewitness to an unrelated shooting saw the gunman enter Goldstein's apartment building. No witness or forensic evidence connected Goldstein with the murder victim, but Long Beach police detectives showed Goldstein's photograph, among others, to Loran Campbell, an eyewitness to the homicide. Campbell did not recognize anyone in the photo lineup, and Goldstein did not match Campbell's description of the suspect. However, a detective asked if Goldstein could have been the person Campbell saw running from the scene. Campbell said it was possible, though he was not certain.

Goldstein was arrested and placed in a jail cell with Edward Floyd Fink, a heroin addict and convicted felon. At Goldstein's trial, Fink testified that Goldstein said he was in jail because he shot a man in a dispute over money. Fink claimed he received no benefit as a result of his testimony.

Goldstein was convicted of murder in 1980. In 1988, the Los Angeles County Grand Jury began an investigation into the use of jailhouse informants. In 1990, it issued a public report concluding that misuse of jailhouse informants had been pervasive over the preceding 10 years. The grand jury found that the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office had demonstrated a “deliberate and informed declination to take the action necessary to curtail the misuse of jailhouse informant testimony.” Among other deficiencies, it had failed to create a centralized index of potential impeachment information about informants, including any benefit they received for their testimony and their history of cooperation with law enforcement.

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County ordered that “material accumulated and used by the 1988-89 Grand Jury and the 1989-90 Grand Jury in their investigations of the jailhouse informants is to be kept secure by the court. [¶] The material is not to be viewed, inspected or copied except by order of the Presiding Judge, Assistant Presiding Judge, or the Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division.”

After the grand jury released its report, Goldstein sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. At an evidentiary hearing in August 2002, Loran Campbell recanted his identification of Goldstein. Campbell admitted he had been overanxious to help the police. He had identified Goldstein based on what the police told him and his desire to be a good citizen, not on his observations on the night of the murder. Goldstein also presented evidence that Fink had received benefits for cooperating with law enforcement. The magistrate found Campbell credible, and stated: “It is readily apparent to this Court that Fink fits the profile of the dishonest jailhouse informant that the Grand Jury Report found to be highly active in Los Angeles County at the time of [Goldstein's] conviction.” Goldstein's petition was granted. He was released from custody in April of 2003, after serving 24 years in prison.

In November 2004, Goldstein filed suit in federal court against the City of Long Beach, four Long Beach police detectives, the County of Los Angeles, and two members of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. He stated causes of action under the federal civil rights statute, 42 United States Code section 1983, including claims that the defendants wrongfully obtained his conviction based on their pattern and practice of misusing the testimony of jailhouse informants.

Goldstein first sought access to the grand jury material held by the court in a February 2006 letter to the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the supervising judge of the court's criminal division. Counsel for the superior court replied that the material would not be disclosed because no statutory exception to the rule of grand jury confidentiality appeared to apply. When Goldstein's counsel said he was willing to abide by a protective order limiting use of the material to the civil rights case, the court's counsel evidently indicated that a subpoena would be needed to release the grand jury material.

In July 2006, Goldstein served a federal court subpoena on the superior court requesting production of the grand jury materials. The court's counsel objected, asking Goldstein to withdraw the subpoena and seek access under the 1990 order of the superior court by “appropriate motion before the Presiding Judge, the Assisting Presiding Judge, or the Supervising Judge of the Criminal Division of the Superior Court.” Goldstein complied with this request. In September 2006 he filed a motion seeking access to the grand jury materials under sections 924.2, 929, and 939.1.

Counsel for the County of Los Angeles responded to the motion on behalf of the grand jury in January 2007. County counsel contended the controlling authority was Socialist Workers Party v. Grubisic (7th Cir.1980) 619 F.2d 641. Grubisic requires a party seeking disclosure in a federal action to first submit a request to the state court that supervised the grand jury, to determine if there is a continuing need for secrecy. If not, the grand jury materials may be disclosed. If the state court decides the materials should remain secret, the federal court then determines whether the need for disclosure outweighs the need for secrecy, under the test provided in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest (1979) 441 U.S. 211, 222, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 ( Douglas Oil ). ( Grubisic, supra, at p. 644.) County counsel suggested that the court appoint a special master to review the grand jury materials and recommend which records might be disclosed. Goldstein disputed the need for secrecy and opposed the appointment of a special master, contending it would only cause unnecessary delay.

In March 2007, the court heard argument on the motion and denied Goldstein's request, concluding that the statutes on which he relied did not authorize disclosure of the grand jury materials. ² Goldstein challenged this ruling by seeking a writ of mandate. He contended disclosure was permitted under sections 924.2 and 929. ³ The grand jury and the County responded that the statutes did not authorize disclosure to Goldstein. The grand jury, however, conceded that the federal court would be able to compel disclosure if the circumstances justified it, and faulted Goldstein for failing to pursue his remedy by way of federal subpoena.

The Court of Appeal granted Goldstein's petition and directed the superior court to reconsider his motion to determine whether disclosure was required in the interests of justice, under the Douglas Oil test. The court rejected Goldstein's statutory claims. However, though no party had briefed the issue, it decided that California law permitted the superior court to exercise its inherent authority to prevent injustice in a particular case. The court relied on a quotation from a treatise in Ex Parte Sontag (1884) 64 Cal. 525, 526, 2 P. 402 ( Sontag ), and decided that Daily Journal did not apply because it concerned only public disclosure of grand jury proceedings. We granted review.

DISCUSSION

[1] We briefly outline the positions taken by the parties. The grand jury and the County dispute the notion that California courts have inherent authority to order disclosure of grand jury materials, and maintain that no statute supports Goldstein's request for disclosure. ⁴ The grand jury continues to contend that Goldstein might have obtained disclosure by pursuing a federal court subpoena. ⁵ In its reply brief,...