camera hearing in California

2025“Pitchess rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 424 .) “When a defendant shows good cause for the discovery of information in an officer’s personnel records, the trial court must 20 examine the records in camera to determine if any information should be disclosed.” (People v. Winbush, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 424 .) At the in camera hearing, “[t]he trial court should . . . make a record of what documents it examined before ruling on the Pitchess motion. . . . [T]he court can . . . state for the record what documents it examined.” (People v. Mooc

2025(Id. at p. 1226.) If the court finds good cause, it must hold an in camera hearing, during which the custodian of records brings “all documents ‘potentially relevant’ to the defendant’s motion.” (Ibid.) Subject to certain limitations, the court must disclose to the defendant “ ‘ information [that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.’ ” (Ibid.) The trial court must make a record of its in camera review to allow for future appellate review. ( Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1229–1230.) The court can make that record by copying the documents and placing them in a

2025(People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 956 .) Under the prevailing law, on a properly noticed motion, the lower court should conduct an in camera hearing in which it first determines whether sufficient grounds exist for maintaining the confidentiality of the informant’s identity.

2024He requested the trial court conduct an in camera hearing under People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs) to determine whether: (1) the affidavit is facially sufficient; (2) information should be disclosed because it would not reveal the informant’s identity; (3) whether additional information is necessary to allow the court to undertake a complete review of the affidavit; (4) whether disclosure is necessary to ensure he has an opportunity to challenge the warrant; and (5) whether the informant may be a material witness to his guilt or innocence.

2024We conclude that the trial court followed the proper procedure and created an adequate record of the in camera hearing (People v. Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1228–1229; People v. Yearwood, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 180 ), and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining there was no information subject to disclosure (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 ).

2023(People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1285 .) The exercise of that discretion “must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316 .) We review the record for “materials so clearly pertinent to the issues raised by the Pitchess discovery motion that failure to disclose them was an abuse of Pitchess discretion.” (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 .) The record of the trial court’s in camera h

2025“Pitchess rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 424 .) “When a defendant shows good cause for the discovery of information in an officer’s personnel records, the trial court must 20 examine the records in camera to determine if any information should be disclosed.” (People v. Winbush, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 424 .) At the in camera hearing, “[t]he trial court should . . . make a record of what documents it examined before ruling on the Pitchess motion. . . . [T]he court can . . . state for the record what documents it examined.” (People v. Mooc

2023(People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1285 .) The exercise of that discretion “must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316 .) We review the record for “materials so clearly pertinent to the issues raised by the Pitchess discovery motion that failure to disclose them was an abuse of Pitchess discretion.” (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 .) The record of the trial court’s in camera h

2023(Mooc, at pp. 1226, 1228−1229.) At the in camera hearing, “the court must review the requested records in camera to determine what information, if any, should be disclosed” (People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 179 (Gaines)), making a record of the documents it examined to facilitate appellate review (Mooc, at p. 1229).

2023Daniel argues that if we determine the trial court committed error in the course of conducting the in camera hearing, we should utilize “the remedy . . . set forth in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172 .” “That is, if materials were improperly withheld, [Daniel’s] conviction should be conditionally 24 reversed and the matter should be remanded to the trial court to order disclosure[, citation; t]hen, the trial court on remand must allow [Daniel] an opportunity to demonstrate prejudice from the failure to disclose the relevant information[, citation; and], . . . if the trial court determine

1980As Division Five of this district stated in People v. Aguilera (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 863, 868-869 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 603 ]: “If his testimony at the in camera hearing shows that there is no reasonable possibility the informant could aid the defense, the public interest in nondisclosure of his identity can be preserved without any infringement on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” But there is no way to establish the absence of any such reasonable possibility if the informant cannot be so examined.

1980As Division Five of this district stated in People v. Aguilera (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 863, 868-869 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 603 ]: “If his testimony at the in camera hearing shows that there is no reasonable possibility the informant could aid the defense, the public interest in nondisclosure of his identity can be preserved without any infringement on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” But there is no way to establish the absence of any such reasonable possibility if the informant cannot be so examined.

2016(City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 85-86 .) 6 The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on whether an in camera hearing is required.

2014First, Evidence Code section 1045 simply requires that an in camera Pitchess hearing must be had “in conformity with” Evidence Code section 915, “ ‘i.e., out of the presence of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as he or she is willing to have present ....’” (Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1038 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , 63 P.3d 228 ] (Alford); City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 83 .) We observed in People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 482 , 36 P.3d 21 ] (Mooc): “[T]o protect the officer’s privacy, th

2013More important, our own review of the transcript of the in camera hearing reveals the very problem which the court in Biggs identified as inherent in such proceedings; i.e., that “the judge cannot simultaneously perform the tasks of inspecting and identifying the material, measuring the government’s claim to withhold it and assessing the defendant’s need to get it.” (Biggs, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at p. 530 .) In fact, the court here failed to do any of those things.

2000As the court explained in People v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 522 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 118 ], the in camera hearing provided by section 915, subdivision (b) “offers the judge a guarded look into the government’s secrets as a prelude to a more extended inquiry.

2017In People v. Pacheco (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 70, 81-82 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 583 ], the First Appellate District, Division Four, observed: “It is the invocation of the basic privilege [of a public entity to decline disclosure of an informant’s identity] that denies the informer’s name to the defendant, not the in camera hearing, which is only the method by which the court determines the applicability of the privilege.

2017In People v. Pacheco (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 70, 81-82 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 583 ], the First Appellate District, Division Four, observed: “It is the invocation of the basic privilege [of a public entity to decline disclosure of an informant’s identity] that denies the informer’s name to the defendant, not the in camera hearing, which is only the method by which the court determines the applicability of the privilege.

2020(People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330 .) Having reviewed the in camera hearing record, we agree the trial court did not follow the procedure for in camera Pitchess hearings as outlined by statute and the courts.

2014(People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330 ; accord People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 .) Here, the trial court followed proper procedure and created an adequate record of the in camera hearing.

2025(Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1039 .) A sealed transcript of the in camera hearing was made part of the appellate record.

2025(Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1039 .) Here, a sealed transcript of the in camera hearing was made part of the appellate record.

2015At the in camera hearing, the prosecution may offer evidence which would tend to disclose or which discloses the identity of the informant to aid the court in its determination whether there is a reasonable possibility that nondisclosure might deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” (Ibid.) 31 [Citation.] An informant is a material witness if there appears, from the evidence presented, a reasonable possibility that he or she could give evidence on the issue of guilt that might exonerate the defendant.” (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 159 ; accord, Davis v. Superior Court (2010) 186 Ca

2014(People v. Davis (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1277-1278 .) “An informant is not a ‘material witness’ nor does his nondisclosure deny the defendant a fair trial where the informant’s testimony although ‘material’ on the issue of guilt could only further implicate rather than exonerate the defendant.” (People v. Alderrou (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1074, 1080-1081 ; People v. Garza (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 148, 155 .) Thus, when the evidence adduced at an in camera hearing tends to establish the lack of a “reasonable possibility that a particular percipient eyewitness-informer could 11 give evidence on t

2021Code,] § 1042, subd. (d).) ‘[W]hen an in camera hearing has been held and the trial court has reasonably concluded, as in the instant case, that the informant does not have knowledge of facts that would tend to exculpate the defendant, disclosure of the identity of the informer is prohibited by . . . [Evidence Code] section 1042, subdivision (d), since the public entity has invoked the privilege pursuant to [Evidence Code] section 1041.’ ” (People v. Bradley, supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at pp. 620-621.) The trial court complied with Evidence Code section 1042’s procedures.

2021(People v. Bradley (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 607, 621 (Bradley).) Based on our independent review of the record, including the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing, we find no abuse of discretion.

2026Finally, defendant requests this court conduct an independent review of the materials the trial court reviewed during an in camera hearing held pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady) and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).

2025(See Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531 .) If a trial court finds good cause, the court must then hold an in camera hearing to review all potentially relevant documents.

2026Finally, defendant requests this court conduct an independent review of the materials the trial court reviewed during an in camera hearing held pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady) and Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).

2026If such a request is made, the court shall hold such a hearing outside the presence of the defendant and his counsel.” 15 Evidence Code section 915, subdivision (b) provides in relevant part that “the court may require the person from whom disclosure is sought or the person authorized to claim the privilege, or both, to disclose the information in chambers out of the presence and hearing of all persons except the person 28 261–263 [noting ex parte proceedings may be appropriate regarding trial strategy or the review of information under the rule of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 ].) Tapi

2020(People v. Montgomery (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1021 ; accord, In re Marcos B. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 299, 308 [defense counsel has the right to propose questions for the in camera hearing].) 9 Between the original question being framed in the negative, an evidentiary objection causing a lengthy gap, and a readback, there may be some ambiguity in what Schnautz meant in answering “Yes.” 21 Schnautz stumbled over how to spell or pronounce Edgerrin’s name and did not appear to know who he was.

2020(People v. Montgomery (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1021 ; accord, In re Marcos B. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 299, 308 [defense counsel has the right to propose questions for the in camera hearing].) 9 Between the original question being framed in the negative, an evidentiary objection causing a lengthy gap, and a readback, there may be some ambiguity in what Schnautz meant in answering “Yes.” 21 Schnautz stumbled over how to spell or pronounce Edgerrin’s name and did not appear to know who he was.

2016(People v. Tolliver (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 2 Defendant cites Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th 948 , People v. Luttenberger (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1 , People v. Navarro (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 146 and People v. Galland (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 489 in support of his claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for an in camera hearing.

2006(Franks, supra, 438 U.S. at p. 168 ; Luttenberger, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 9.) 22 The parties have not asked us to determine what type of showing is necessary to require an in camera hearing, whether such a showing was made by appellants, or how such a hearing should be conducted, so we leave those issues for another day and another court.

2023Code, § 1042, subd. (d).) “The confidential informant’s presence is not required at the in camera hearing. [Citations.]” (Davis v. Superior Court (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1277-1278 ; accord, People v. Fried (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1313-1314 ; People v. Alderrou (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1074, 1079-1080 ; People v. Lee (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 830, 839 .) “We review the trial court’s ruling concerning the disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant under the abuse of discretion standard. [Citation.]” (Davis v. Superior Court, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 1277 ) “[W]hen an in camera

2016(Hobbs, at p. 957; Luttenberger, at pp. 6, 21-24; Navarro, at p. 163; Galland, at p. 494.) They do not involve the issue before us, which is the circumstances under which a trial court must conduct an in camera hearing to decide a motion for disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity. 9 1036, 1044 [the defendant may rely upon reasonable inferences that flow from the prosecution’s evidence]; Williams v. Superior Court (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 412 , 420- 421.) “In analyzing the evidence actually used to convict appellant and the evidence the confidential informant might have supplied, it is i

2023Upon receiving the subpoenaed documents, “the court may order an in camera hearing to determine whether or not the defense is entitled to receive the documents.” (§ 1326, subd. (d).) (See People v. Hammon (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1117, 1122 [trial court was not required to review subpoenaed documents].) While certain circumstances may necessitate or require in camera review, there were no such circumstances here.

2023Code, § 1035.4.) “The court may compel disclosure of information 3 received by the sexual assault counselor which constitutes relevant evidence of the facts and circumstances involving an alleged sexual assault about which the victim is complaining and which is the subject of a criminal proceeding if the court determines that the probative value outweighs the effect on the victim, the treatment relationship, and the treatment services if disclosure is compelled.” (Ibid.) When privileged information is sought, the trial court must “balance the defendant’s need for cross-examination and the stat