charges and the proposed defense in California

2026(Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1024 .) Accordingly, in evaluating materiality, courts consider whether there is a “logical connection between the charges and the proposed defense” and whether the information sought will “support the proposed defense.” (Id., at pp. 1026-1027; see id., at p. 1021.) To establish good cause, a defendant also must present “a specific factual scenario of officer misconduct that is plausible when read in light of the pertinent documents.” (Id. at p. 1025.) Accordingly, to establish good cause and obtain in camera review of confidential law enforcement personnel re

2026(Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1024 .) Accordingly, in evaluating materiality, courts consider whether there is a “logical connection between the charges and the proposed defense” and whether the information sought will “support the proposed defense.” (Id., at pp. 1026-1027; see id., at p. 1021.) To establish good cause, a defendant also must present “a specific factual scenario of officer misconduct that is plausible when read in light of the pertinent documents.” (Id. at p. 1025.) Accordingly, to establish good cause and obtain in camera review of confidential law enforcement personnel re

2014Establishing “materiality” requires a defendant to show “(1) a logical connection between the charges and the proposed defense; (2) the requested discovery is factually specific and tailored to support the claim of officer misconduct; (3) the requested discovery supports the proposed defense or is likely to lead to information that will do so; and (4) the requested discovery is potentially admissible at trial. [Citation.]” (Giovanni B. v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 312, 319 .) If a defendant establishes both good cause and materiality, the personnel records at issue are reviewed by

2014Warrick clarified that the materiality element requires the defendant to establish a logical link between the pending charge and the proposed defense, and to articulate how the requested discovery will support the proffered defense. [Citation.] Accordingly, defense counsel’s supporting declaration must propose a defense and articulate how the requested discovery may be admissible as direct or impeachment evidence in support of the proposed defense, or how the requested discovery may lead to such evidence. [Citation.] Thus, a defendant meets the materiality element by showing (1) a logical conn

2026(Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1228 .) 2.

2012If those statutory provisions do not prohibit disclosure, “ ‘the trial court should then disclose to the defendant “such information [that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.” ’ (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 482 , 36 P.3d 21 ], quoting Evid.

2020These requirements ensure that only information ‘potentially relevant’ to the defense need be brought by the custodian of the officer’s records to the court for its examination in chambers.” (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1024 ; see People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 146 [a “logical connection” must be established between the charges and the proposed defense to establish good cause for the granting of a Pitchess motion].) The trial court determines “whether defendant’s averments, ‘[v]iewed in conjunction with the police reports’ and any other documents, suffice to ‘establish a plausibl

2012Accordingly, defense counsel’s supporting declaration must propose a defense and articulate how the requested discovery may be admissible as direct or impeachment evidence in support of the proposed defense, or how the requested discovery may lead to such evidence. [Citation.] Thus, a defendant meets the materiality element by showing (1) a logical connection between the charges and the proposed defense; (2) the requested discovery is factually specific and tailored to support the claim of officer misconduct; (3) the requested discovery supports the proposed defense or is likely to lead to inf

2012Accordingly, defense counsel’s supporting declaration must propose a defense and articulate how the requested discovery may be admissible as direct or impeachment evidence in support of the proposed defense, or how the requested discovery may lead to such evidence. [Citation.] Thus, a defendant meets the materiality element by showing (1) a logical connection between the charges and the proposed defense; (2) the requested discovery is factually specific and tailored to support the claim of officer misconduct; (3) the requested discovery supports the proposed defense or is likely to lead to inf

2008Code, § 1043, subd. (b).)” (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 2 , 112 P.3d 2 ].) To determine whether the good cause requirement has been met, a trial court must consider whether the defense has established (1) that the information is material to the subject matter of the pending litigation, and (2) “ ‘a “reasonable belief’ that the agency has the type of information sought.’ ” (Ibid.) The defense must demonstrate a logical connection between the charges and the proposed defense, and also “ ‘articulate how the discovery being sought would support such a de

2008Code, § 1043, subd. (b).)” (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 2 , 112 P.3d 2 ].) To determine whether the good cause requirement has been met, a trial court must consider whether the defense has established (1) that the information is material to the subject matter of the pending litigation, and (2) “ ‘a “reasonable belief’ that the agency has the type of information sought.’ ” (Ibid.) The defense must demonstrate a logical connection between the charges and the proposed defense, and also “ ‘articulate how the discovery being sought would support such a de