Home › Breaking News
State Supreme Court overturns ruling against lawyer in case
The California Supreme Court ruled today that a prosecutor in the Jesse James Hollywood murder case shouldn't have been barred from handling the trial because he cooperated with a Ventura screenwriter for the film "Alpha Dog," which was based on the crime.
The court concluded that there was no conflict of interest and no infringement on Hollywood's right to a fair trial.
The high court overturned the ruling by the Ventura-based Second Court of Appeal on the Hollywood matter and a similar case — both involving actions by senior deputy district attorneys in Santa Barbara County.
The second litigation involved a Santa Barbara prosecutor who wrote a book that closely paralleled some of the particulars in a rape case she was handling.
The Second Court of Appeal ruled that the prosecutors' actions in both instances amounted to a conflict of interest that would require that they be removed from handling the cases.
In addition to rejecting that position, the Supreme Court ruled that the appellate court's conclusions that death penalty cases, such as the Hollywood trial, should be held to a higher standard.
"We reject the Court of Appeal's conclusion that capital cases are sufficiently different from ordinary criminal cases that application of a higher standard of appellate scrutiny to recusal motions is required," the Supreme Court said.
There is an existing standard for conflicts of interest and those have to do with things such as financial gain or some sort of personal connection to someone or something involved in the case. No such conflict was shown in these cases, said David Glassman, the California Deputy Attorney General who argued on behalf of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's office.
On the Web: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147954.PDF




Posted by lilmamma on May 12, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless of the conflict of interest. Jesse James Hollywood should be on death row because what he did was disgusting. No one is above the law when a murder is committed.
Posted by JesusMalverde on May 12, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While I understand the ruling that the Supreme Court made, I have to say as a tax paying citizen, I am very wary of public employees attempting to profit from cases that they are handling, whether that be writing books about them or consulting on a movie. I am not sure if this prosecutor was paid, but regardless, he should not be undertaking projects made for profit while performing hispublic function and duty.
I notice this occurred in Santa Barabara, not Ventura. I am glad for that.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on May 12, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JesusMalverde, judges as well as lawyers for both the defense and prosecution have been writing books (and advising TV/movies) for years, and as the court has said, unless they have a direct personal ownership to the case (i.e. holding stock in a company; or a relative to a defendant) there is nothing wrong with it. Cops like Joseph Wambaugh used his experiences in books; several lawyers wrote about O.J., as did OJ himself! Lots of public employees have written about their work based experiences. Frankly, the more the public hear the better and more knowledgeable we can be. I'm not jealous of any public employee... including President Clinton's millions for writing about his time as President.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.