English - The People vs. Carlo Parlanti

1
3
RON BAMIEH (SBN 159413)
BAMIEH & ERICKSON, PLC
121 N. FIR STREET, SUITE A
VENTURA, CA 93001
TELEPHONE (805) 643-5555
FAX: (805) 643-5558
4
Attorney for CARLO PARLANTI
5
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA
8
9
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
11
12
vs.
13
CASE NO. 2002026651
SUPPLEMENT TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS
AND RECUSE PROSECUTOR(S)
)
14
)
)
CARLO PARLANTI,
Defendant.
16
)
DATE: November 14,2005
TIME: 9:00 AM
CRTM: 14
-----------------------------------)
17
SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS
18
The District Attorney's Office investigator Mr. David Williams was assigned to
19
investigate the above entitled case for approximately the last 18 months. The District
20
Attorney's Office as of
ovember Il,2005,
has discovered 711 pages ofbait stamped
21
discovery.
I
In the entire discovery provided by the People Mr. Williams has produced just one
22
report. (Attached as A to this Motion). In this report Mr. Williams writes that he has been
23
assigned the case since July 20, 2004 and that he has contacted the listed victims t o solicit their
24
cooperation.
25
26
n'J
Noted that
approximately
within the discavery.
l
28
250
pages
are
duplicate.
copies
of
l
,
SUPPLEMENT AL MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
PROSECUTOR
other
pages
1
Mr. Williams writes in his one report that all of the victims attempted to "lese them
selves." He does not attribute when, who, and how he obtained this quote. Mr. Williams writes
3
in his one and onl report that each victim described seemingly true and very sincere feeling for
4
their safety ... Mr.
5
in what context. Mr. Williams writes in his sole report that ali woman confirmed that what they
6
reported to the police regarding what had occurred to them at the hands of Mr. Parlanti was
7
true, and willing to testify.
8
reports that is directly attributable to any ofthese woman. There are reports from Monterey
9
Police Department which identifies lane Doe 1 and lane Doe 2, but the identities ofthose lane
illiams makes no attempt to explain when this information was obtained,
The problem with this statement is that there is no statement in any
10
Does are not identified in any reports. There is no report from one of the three, since there is
11
on1y two lane Does identified in the reports, which begs the question where is the statement in
12
the police reports from the third woman. It appears that best the People could argue that two of
13
the three women mentioned in Mr. Williams only report are the lane Does, but that leaves the
4
People with a third woman, who apparently on1y told her statement of alleged abuse to Mr.
.L:J
Williams. It is also apparent then that on1y the People know which woman is which lane Doe,
16
and they have never shared this information with the defense.
17
Once again, there is no individual reports regarding this contact. Mr. Williams reports
18
that Sandra Phillips and Sandra Hollingsworth's
19
who made this quote is not known. However the tip of this iceberg appears nowhere in the
2O
reports provide through discovery.
21
statements were just the "tip ofthe iceberg"
Mr. Williams writes in his one and on1y report that on September 20, 2005, he once
22
again contacted all three prior victims, that there was trial pending and their names and contact
23
information had been provided to defense counsel. Mr. Williams then writes in his Ione repot
24
that encompasses the totality of his work over 18 months of investigation that they were not
25
happy, and declined to provide further specific information. Then Mr. Williams writes in this
26
lonely report that the he told these women that they did not have talk to anyone about their
involvement with Parlanti, and they each made it clear that they and no intention of talking with
28
2
,
SUPPLEMENT AL MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY PROSECUTOR
AND DISTRICT ATIORNEY'S OFFICE
ANYBODYas
o ar
with Parlanti, and two ofthem were sorry that they initially agre ed to
talk to MI. Willi
. Besides the efforts of Mr. Williarns to suppress discovery for the defense,
3
he makes no atte
o state which of the women were regretful they had decided to cooperate
4
with the prosecution.
5
Mr.
illiarns a parently had extensive contact with the alleged 1109 witnesses in this
6
case. This is apparent through his one report, and emails he has written to other people,
7
inc1uding Ms. _ 1ai Debarra on October Il 2004. Mr. Williams writes
8
number ofwomen about Palanti's behavior, habits, his likes, dislikes, and how they
9
manifest themselves within his relationships with women ... " (Attached as Exhibit B to this
"I have spoken to a
lO
Motion) There are no reports provided anywhere in the discovery regarding Mr. Williarns
Il
extensive contacts with other women regarding the defendant.
12
Provided in the discovery are numerous emails from the alleged victim Ms. Rebecca
13
White to Mr. Williarns, where she provides information regarding witnesses, websites for
14
Williarns to research, and facts regarding the case. (Attached to this Motion as Exhibit C). In
.LJ
Rebecca White's email to Mr. Williarns of January 22, 2005, she writes, "I do not know if .. I
16
have told you this before" and then relates why she stayed with Mr. Parlanti after the alleged
17
abuse. (bait stamped page 328).
18
taken ofMs. White. ((bait starnped page 329). Another email of August 27,2005, discussing
19
that she is providing Mr. Williarns with some thing from her email box, however no
20
explanation is ever provided ofwhat exactly she provided. ((bait starnped page 347). Email
21
from Ms. White to Mr. Williarns of August 27,2005 providing information of person narned
22
Lance who is allegedly a precipitant witness. (bait starnped page 348), no report of any contact
23
with Lance is provided. Email of Ms. White to MI. Williarns regarding her divorce decree
24
((bait starnped page 350) no explanation as to why this email was provided, or of any
25
conversation or questions that stimulated Ms. White making this disc1osure, email of August
26
30,2005 Ms. White provides Lance's phone number ((bait starnped page 352). Email of August
';/
Another email of January 10,2005, discussing photographs
31, 2005 where Ms. White apparently emails Mr. Williams a picture of herself (bait stamped
28
3
SUPPLEMENT AL MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
t
PROSECUTOR
1
page 357) whi
- e 'er been provided to the defense and no explanation once again is
apparent as to w : -' e eh compelled to do this. There are no reports from MI. Williarns
3
4
documenting 'w
. e the genesis or stimuli for these numerous emails.
Aiso incl
the discovery are a approximately 50 pages ofhandwritten
notes, dated
5
March through
6
written, what was
7
Attorney's Possessio
8
handwritten not
9
generated, the year ge erated, at whose request, and when they were turned over to the District
10
11
: with no explanation of who wrote the notes, what year the notes were
ose of those notes, and how those notes carne into the District
There are typed written pages, corresponding apparently in the
. _-o xplanation of these type written notes is provided, when they were
Attomey's Offi e. Attached as Exhibit D to this Motion)
An in estigator
orking on behalf of the defendant contacted Mr. Dana Orent, who had
12
previously ,worked on the investigation of Ms. White for MI. Parlanti's previous legaI
13
representative.:yfI.
14
Exhibit E to this ~Iotion.) Mr. Orent will testify that on September 14, 2004, MI. Williarns
.LJ
contacted Mr. Orent. Mr. Williarns told Mr. Orent that Heather White, daughter ofRebecca
16
White contacted him. Mr. Orent had previously attempted to contact Ms. Heather White. MI.
17
Williarns told Mr. Orent that Heather White had contacted him and asked MI. Williarns if she
18
had to speak to Mr. Orent. Mr. Williarns stated that Heather White had obtained Mr. Williarns
19
phone number from her mother. Mr. Orent explained his reasons for wanting to speak to
2O
Heather White, and Mr. Orent expressed his concerns for the allegations made against MI.
21
Parlanti. MI. Williams told Mr. Orent that there were holes in the case and he was also had
22
concerns about the allegations made by Rebecca White. MI. Williarns said he was troubled by
23
the timeline that Rebecca said these acts occurred, along with White saying she was held
24
prisoner and couldn't leave although MI. Parlanti was not with her at those times. MI.
25
Williarns stated that Rebecca White seems to be a troubled person, but there were other women
26
who said that were deathly afraid of Mr. Parlanti. MI. Williarns stated that he wasn't sure if
Orent provided a statement to Defense Counsel's investigator. (Attached as
these other women would testify due to their concern for their safety.
28
4
SUPPLEMENTAL
t
MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
PROSECUTOR
Mr.
illi
stared that he wanted to ask Rebecca White certain questions, such as
where she went o
e athroom etc. if she was bound for a lengthy period of time. He asked
3
that ifMr. Oren h
e idence to refute her claims that Mr. Orent share it with him. Mr.
4
Williarns stated as ofthe date ofhis conversation with Mr. Orent a Deputy District Attorney
5
had not been assign
6
the case.
Mr. Orent forwarded an email he received from Mr. Williams on or about October 27,
7
2004. In that email, ~lr.
8
with her. Mr.
9
White. Mr.
illiams admits to speaking to Heather White and discussing the case
'illiams also adrnits receiving emails and other documents from Ms. Rebecca
illiarns states that he believes that Heather White is embarrassed by her mother,
lO
and that some ofher mother's statements consistent and inconsistent with what Rebecca White
Il
told the police.
12
It should be noted that there has been no discovery provided by the District Attorney' s
13
Office regarding Y1r.
14
opinion that Rebecca White had holes in her story, and there is no discovery regarding Mr.
.L
J
16
illiams contact with Ms. Heather White, why Mr. Williams held the
Williams individual interviews with all of the alleged 1109 witnesses.
Mr. Romero besides providing his notes of interview he and Mr. Williarns conducted
17
with Ms. Rebecca White also provided his notes about his interview with Ms. White's parents,
18
this interview was conducted on October 31, 2005. (Attached to Original Motion as Exhibit E)
19
The statements of
2O
regarding her contact with her parents after the alleged incident occurred. At the preliminary
21
hearing Ms. White told the initial investing officer that she delayed in reporting Mr. Parlanti's
22
alleged abuse because her father would not provide her money unless she reported Mr. Parlanti.
23
(See Preliminary Hearing Page 43, lines 21-28, pg. 44lines 1-6 for Ms. White's admission on
24
this issue). According to Mr. Romero's notes both ofher parents deny this, and according to
25
Ms. White's email ofMr. Romero on November 1,2005, Rebecca White explains why she had
26
to change her statement regarding her father's request that she report Carlo before he gives her
'J
any money.
s. White's parents are inconsistent with Ms. White's initial statements
There are no reports or explanation ofwhy Ms. White knew this issue needed
28
5
SUPPLEMENTAL
I
MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY
AND DISTRlCT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
PROSECUTOR
.r A~J) ADDITIONAL
AUTHORITIES
_. .ams had extensive contact with both Ms. White and the
3
alleged 1109 \ .
4
had extensive
5
he does not a
6
Williarns email o _ r
7
Williarns has
8
emails going ba
9
conversation i go g on between Mr. Williams and Ms. White.
10
11
12
Mr.
e. _ Ir. Williarns report of August 20, 2005, establishes that he
.
Distri t Attorney's Office has no reports on any ofthese contacts,
e _ o e or information to any specific witness, and it is written. Mr.
•
De arra on October Il 2004, is another exarnple of the fact that Mr.
"e
illi
ontacts with these woman. Additional evidence in the form of
'ith Ms. Rebecca White make it c1ear that much information and
admits to Mr. Orent that he had found holes in Ms. White's story, and in
the email admits o contact and an interview with Ms. Heather White.
Evidence i
rovided in the discovery in the form of the handwritten and typed notes at
13
or around the time of the incident and there is no explanation as to whose notes these are, how
14
the District Attorne
.L
5
l6
carne into possession of this information, and if anyone was asked to
provide it.
This case re olves around Ms. Rebecca White, any information that would go to
l7
impeach her credibility is highly material since the Defense will focus on the unreliability of
18
her statements. Here the District Attomey's Office has discussed the case with her numerous
l9
times, she is providing statements on a sometimes daily basis, she is providing pictures, letters,
2O
and other information that the District Attomey has not provided and/or how it was obtained,
21
who asked for it, and what interview lead to Ms. White feeling compelled to provide such
22
information.
23
The Defense position is that even if tapes or reports do not exist, the prosecution by not
24
providing reports ofthe interviews and/or their tapes, or reports documenting statements made
25
to lnvestigator Williarns, or reports ofhow evidence was received has effectively destroyed
26
evidence. lf the prosecution is in possession of material evidence and they do not document
their receipt of such evidence has not this evidence been destroyed. The Prosecution's position
28
7
SUPPLEMENT AL MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY PROSECUTOR
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
re 'e 'e them oftheir responsibility to produce it. It will
be establish
. ensive contact with Ms. White, that he interviewed all
alleged 1109
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
onducted interview with Ms. Heather White, and has
received evi
" _ Is. White. Yet he has provided no notes, tapes, or explanation
of his contac
i ence.
White's state
'hite s motivations, and of statements by other percipient
witnesses who apparent,
peach Ms. White, including her own daughter.
People
Y. _
L-':::_
Ca1.3d 468,
P te
Mr. Williams has effectively destroyed evidence ofMs.
, _ Ca1.4th 1148, 1180 (1992) citing People v. Douglas (1990) 50
[_6 Cal.Rptr. 126,788 P.2d 640], stated the following:
rve evidence, whether grounded in the state or federal
to be assessed following Proposition 8 in accordance
S"'i.2.I1GalrO articulated in California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S.
L.Ed.2d 413, 421- 422, 104 S.Ct. 2528]: " 'Whatever
.on imposes on the States to preserve evidence, that duty
must be li 'o vidence that might be expected to play a role in the
suspec
e e e. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality
[citations}, e idence must possess both an exculpatory value that was
apparera e ore che evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that
the defen
'ould be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other
reasonably a 'ailable means .... ' " (Douglas, supra, at p. 512, italics added.)
Court identi
certain obligations as incumbent upon the prosecution.
17
Where the prosecution suppresses or destroys or looses evidence, law enforcement officials
18
must adhere to enain precepts and procedures or run the risk of violating an accused's
19
constitutionalrights.
2O
(1963), the supreme Court held that the prosecution may violate the most basic tenets of due
21
process by suppressing specific types of evidence both beneficial to and requested by the
22
defendant. In addition, four years later the Court held that "unless a criminal defendant can
23
show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not
24
constitute a denial of due process oflaw." Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58; 109 S.Ct.
2S
333,337-38;
26
7
InBradyv.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10L.Ed.2d.215
102 L.Ed.2d.281 (1988).
The destruction of physical evidence which is not conducted in accordance with
regulations, standard procedures, or judicial order constitutes objective evidence ofbad faith.
L8
8
,
SUPPLEMENT AL MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY PROSECUTOR
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
, e. g., =-==c.===.....:.......c-=-
=- :=---".i:.=_=:;)..:...._
...!....-
a=-=1-"-99::....:9:..L)-,,,8.:::...3
-=-F=.
S,-=u=PPo:.;.'
2=d=-.6=3'-'.7..l-'
.:::...64.:....;.7....:-6"-4=8.)
"illiams failed to docurnent,
-:
-
evidence o
-=
1.
5
2.
6
3.
es ion in Bad Faith.
e assigned
onl
7
8
4.
a extensive
umerous
10
- Wiììiams
5.
one report of two pages over 18 months he
occasions,
and has not provided
one report regarding
adrnitted via an email and phone call with Mr. Orent that he had
a White's
14
_ -.
co
16
l
statements
credibìlity
and that her daughter
inconsistent.
found some
There are no reports regarding
-on that Ms. Rebecca White was not credible.
'hite appears on the People's
6.
-- .ams interviewed
ge e
19
White's
--:ams interview of Heather White, or why Mr. Williarns reached the
H
18
re ort mentioned
the alleged
It should be noted that
witness list.
1109 witnesses
in this case, besides the
above he has not docurnented
his contact with these
oman.
7.
The District Attomey's
Office adrnits that on August 24,2005,
21
and \I1r. Romero
22
Ms. White provided
23
no reports or tapes of this interview.
24
in this case.
contact with the alleged victim in this case. He
.it the Rebecca
13
20
in this case since July of 04.
e had had with her.
12
l7
provided
is as follows:
·estigator in this case.
9
11
The evidence
investigator
~ 1 pages of discovery
report, andlor provide
8.
interviewed
25
ofhand
26
who received
information
during that interview,
Office through discovery
written notes with no explanation
notes ofthe
28
Rebecca White, they admit by their actions that
discoverable
The District Attomey's
Mr. Williarns
ofhow
them from the District Attomey's
has provided
numerous
pages
these notes were obtained or
Office.
victim, her diary, and the District Attomey's
Ifthese
notes are the
Office has an
9
,
yet provide
SUPPLEMENT AL MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY PROSECUTOR
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
. -' ese notes were obtained, if they were obtained at
3
znissing, even under the People's theory ofthe case there
9.
4
ing ofMs. Rebecca White's statements. These tapes
5
and have not been produced.
6
ve known that he had an obligation to provide reports
7
ollected in this case. Bis failure to do so, was
8
intentional
9
and the COUI:
- has jeopardized Mr. Parlanti's ability to obtain due process,
3.2
havior.
10
11
e has refused to accept service of a lawfulIy served
subpoena on -.=.
:~_--.,.......=-
yees. The District Attomey's has intentionalIy violated Mr.
12
es. Their position that Mr. WilIiarns while employed by
13
their office i
14
prosecutor respoasiot
i unacceptable.
, e by their failure to take any affirmative steps to secure Mr.
WilIiarns attenczra...c;
l6
They are abdicating their role as a
ial. The Violation ofMr. Parlanti's right to subpoena witness are
further dimin
. e rocess rights, and further grounds for dismissal of this action.
17
,--,-,,'o.-.u..;
District Attorney Investigator, assigned to investigate the case
18
before the Court,
19
the District Atto
2O
Attorney's Offi
2l
their investigators o
22
intentional acts of failure to produce evidence and/or destroyed evidence. By the Admission of
23
the Deputy Distri t Attomey prosecuting the case the District Attomey's Office is not even
24
conducting an in estigation into Mr. WilIiarns conduct and disappearance.
25
have no interest in determining if one of their investigators violated the due process rights of
26
somebody who they are prosecuting.
,sappears without notice, moves to such a remote location that while
e via the County of Ventura is still paying him the District
reduce rum at this trial. There is reliable evidence through emails,
TI
statements, and the statements of others, that Mr. Williarns committed
They apparently
The District Attorney's Office, due to the bad faith oftheir investigator, has a conflict of
28
10
SUPPLEMENT AL MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY PROSECUTOR
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
t
interest in this case. There is substantial evidence that Mr. Williarns failed to do what he was
obligated to do, violated his office's policies, and now the agency who should be investigating
his conduct is charged with the prosecution of the case where the bad faith occurred. They
have a conflict of interest, because it is in the District Attomey's Office interest not to
investigate the bad faith and potential criminal and intentional acts oftheir own investigator.
The only interest Ventura County District Attomey's Office's has in this case is apparently to
obtain a conviction. Discovery of additional evidence of Mr. Williarns bad faith or illegal and
intentional acts will affect the prosecution ofthe case they are currently charged with zealously
prosecuting.
The Ventura County District Attomey' sOffice has a clear conflict of interest in this
case, one that will ensure that Mr. Parlanti will not get a fair trial in this action. The implication
:..2
and appearance from their refusal to accept recusal is that they are attempting to cover up the
:..3
misconduct to protect their prosecution and not to investigate the perpetrator of the misconduct.
The introduction of evidence showing arguable wrongful acts by a Investigator for the
_:J
District Attomey sOffice would place the DA's Office in a position at conflict with their
::..6
obligations as a prosecutor. This follows because the allegations of wrongdoing, whether or not
:..7
proven, creates difficulties in separating the role of a prosecutor from that of an individual
seeking to exonerate himself. The court agreed in Lewis v. Superior Court (1997) 53
_9
2O
Cal.App.4th 1277.1282-1285
The fact that the District Attomey' sOffice disputes the allegations of criminal
21
wrongdoing even further supports the need for recusal. The personal need of the District
22
Attomey' soffice to defend itself against the allegations of wrongdoing enhances the conflict by
23
creating a likelihood that the District Attomey' sOffice would use their powers as a prosecutor
24
to exonerate themselves. (See, Smith, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at p. 907 [inappropriate use of
25
power of summation].)
26
any misconduct, the question is not whether they acted illegally but whether the introduction of
]
Even ifthe District Attomey's Office could prove they did not commit
evidence of possible wrongful conduct would threaten their impartiality.
L8
11
SUPPLEMENTAL
t
MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY PROSECUTOR
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
o 'erruming
GEilCllln-
the findings of the trial court
recusal. That conclusion
-_<__
~
evidence . ..,~,~-,
__'""'-
ir- __
L-L-
0- -
_:_
_
in addition to exercising
the discretionary
function 0:-_ ;:::::S!!:~= ==~=---=:....::~=:,--,r-==._-\=p=p,-,-A.:...::th=-..:.1=27..:....7:....l,-=1=2-=-82=---=1-=2..::.:85::..:L'
7
__ s] .- unlikely that the defendant
8
trial." As
9
rneamng
::"0
eir acts the bare introduction of the
eates a conflict of interest requiring the
5
6
follows here as
-.==:..=:..:...=:.......;....::::::-==---'-::::~:..=-...;:..:..-=-c..:::9~,
the 'fair trial' in section
Il
., • rejudice standard.
recusal. Fir _ --
Il
s Investigator.
their own conduct, a substantial
"-'~\IL"'LL~-
13
his power to
14
Since this
_=
in an inappropriate
O;' - 0t)0
as an individuaI.
roblems,
1424" has a broader
Here, two factors require
zsconduct by the District Attomey'
::"1
would receive a fair
Second,
possibility
exists that
manner. An advocate may not use
(Smith, 13 CaLApp.3d
the undisputed
evidence
at p. 908.)
necessitates
recusal or
exclusion o
16
00 parts.
Rec
First a court must address whether the individual
17
DA who ob erveé :::=-
18
frequently.
19
who participar
20
111 CaLAppo" . _ - = ~
21
CaLApp.3d
22
recused. This o
-e __infrequently.
(See, e.g. Eubanks, supra, 14 CaL4th 580 [private
23
company contrib
o the cost ofDA
investigation];
24
acts underlying
25
26
require his testimony
( ee. e.g,
.
6 .
"0
=- ~ --
r.,
Jerritt (1993) 19 CaLAppAth
OCCliIS
[recusal ofpersons
but not of entire DA's office]; Love v. Superior Court (1980)
limited to certain attomeys];
an additional
People v. Hernandez, supra, 235
Lewis, supra, 53 CaLAppAth
factor which requires recusaL A prosecutor
to argue for his own personal
897. 908.) "Longstanding
credibility.
1277 [the
cannons or professional
may not use
(Smith, supra, 13
ethics admonish
attomeys to
12
t
quite
me conflict affected the entire office].)
his power as an advocate
28
1573,1577
This
zie; The second issue decides whether the entire DA's office must be
This case contains
CaLApp.3d
_
must be removed.
SUPPLEMENT AL MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY PROSECUTOR
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
refrain from a
-
-
-here they possess inforrnation of evidentiary value."
(Id. at p. 903.
3
Unlik
_ -al of a prosecutor does not create problems of
4
foreseeabili .-- -
5
chosen advo
6
unless "consis:
7
Thus, for a
8
19 Ca1.3d a p_:.:;:
9
The
-
_ - arise from hardship to the client from the Ioss of a
_-=:. .:.:~.
-.•.
-
909.) In Califomia, no prosecutor may give testimony
_ ~ es =x usal." (Cal. Rules ofProf. Conduct, rule 5-210CC).)
:::-ò eseeability are identical to those of recusal. (Greer, supra,
e govemment officials and clothed with the dignity and
10
prestige of
11
It is plainl -
12
authority of l ;-
13
is predicate
ay to the jury is necessarily weighed with that prestige.
-",,::p_".-.:~r.:>"'T IO
have to contend with a prosecutor who is able to use the
.s personal view of the factual events upon which a conviction
vitness in this case. Re will be called to impeach the alleged
1.
5
victim in this
n it can be stated as an absolute that Mr. Romero will be called is
l6
due to the r
l7
inconsistent. _ Ir. __ 2.::":' is not willing to stipulate to Mr. Romero's testimony.
18
. e s previous statements. Rebecca White has been consistently
A pro
roceeds despite a conflict of interest impacts not only the trial but
19
also affects deci
- h fall outside of the scrutiny of the trial processo As stated in Greer,
2O
supra, 19 Calo
21
.discretionary d
22
might tend to co
. e their impartiality." The court concluded, A district attomey may thus
23
prosecute vigoro
but both the accused and the public have a legitimate expectation that his
24
zeal, as reflected in his tactics at trial, will be bom of objective and impartial consideration of
25
each individual case. (Ibid.)
-.
_6~. "This advantage of public prosecution is lost if those exercising the
e o: - e district attomey are subject to conflicting personal interests which
26
28
13
SUPPLEMENT AL MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY PROSECUTOR
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
- o In estigator
o collect material
ffe tively deprived Mr.
ttorney's violation of Mr.
in bis own
defense,
also
due process rights.
ttomey's
Office due to their
overing up the acts of misconduct
12
illiams and their zealous prosecution of Mr.
13
14
ero he is a witness in this case, his credibility
prosecution of Mr. Parlanti is violation of Mr.
16
;.:~ ••••••• ,-" •.>..>
17
rights, the cannons of ethics, and put Mr. Parlanti
tage in bis defense.
18
19
20
DATED:
-
B
21
22
23
RONBAMIEH
Attorney for CARLO PARLANTI
24
25
26
28
14
,
SUPPLEMENTAL
MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISQUALIFY
AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
PROSECUTOR