prosecution turn over defense in California

1969While, as stated in the case of People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 148 , 349 P.2d 964 ], 11 [t]he court properly denied the blanket request that the prosecution turn over to defense counsel all the statements which it had.

1969While, as stated in the case of People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 148 , 349 P.2d 964 ], 11 [t]he court properly denied the blanket request that the prosecution turn over to defense counsel all the statements which it had.

1960Although the defendant does not have to show, and indeed may be unable to show, that the evidence which he seeks to have produced would be admissible at the trial (People v. Chapman (1959), supra, 52 Cal.2d 95, 98 [3] ; Walker v. Superior Court (1957), supra, 155 Cal.App.2d 134, 141 ), he does have to show some better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which has been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime.

1960Although the defendant does not have to show, and indeed may be unable to show, that the evidence which he seeks to have produced would be admissible at the trial (People v. Chapman (1959), supra, 52 Cal.2d 95, 98 [3] [ 338 P.2d 428 ] ; Walker v. Superior Court (1957), supra, 155 Cal.App.2d 134, 141 [ 317 P.2d 130 ]), he does have to show some better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which has been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime.” In this case the indictment was filed on September 3d, 1959; on October 6th the ease was set for

1960Although the defendant does not have to show, and indeed may be unable to show, that the evidence which he seeks to have produced would be admissible at the trial (People v. Chapman (1959), supra, 52 Cal.2d 95, 98 [3] ; Walker v. Superior Court (1957), supra, 155 Cal.App.2d 134, 141 ), he does have to show some better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which has been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime.

1960Although the defendant does not have to show, and indeed may be unable to show, that the evidence which he seeks to have produced would be admissible at the trial (People v. Chapman (1959), supra, 52 Cal.2d 95, 98 [3] [ 338 P.2d 428 ] ; Walker v. Superior Court (1957), supra, 155 Cal.App.2d 134, 141 [ 317 P.2d 130 ]), he does have to show some better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which has been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime.” In this case the indictment was filed on September 3d, 1959; on October 6th the ease was set for

1966Although the defendant does not have to show, and indeed may be unable to show, that the evidence which he seeks to have produced would be admissible at the trial [citations], he does have to show some better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which has been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime.” (See also People v. Terry (1962) 57 Cal.2d 538, 560 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 370 P.2d 985 ]; People v. Lane (1961) 56 Cal.2d 773, 785-786 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 366 P.2d 57 ].) Our position does not reflect “a swing of the pendulum” (Louisell, Mo

1966Although the defendant does not have to show, and indeed may be unable to show, that the evidence which he seeks to have produced would be admissible at the trial [citations], he does have to show some better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which has been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime.” (See also People v. Terry (1962) 57 Cal.2d 538, 560 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 370 P.2d 985 ]; People v. Lane (1961) 56 Cal.2d 773, 785-786 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 366 P.2d 57 ].) Our position does not reflect “a swing of the pendulum” (Louisell, Mo

1966Although the defendant does not have to show, and indeed may be unable to show, that the evidence which he seeks to have produced would be admissible at the trial [citations], he does have to show some better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which has been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime.” (See also People v. Terry (1962) 57 Cal.2d 538, 560 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 370 P.2d 985 ]; People v. Lane (1961) 56 Cal.2d 773, 785-786 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 366 P.2d 57 ].) Our position does not reflect “a swing of the pendulum” (Louisell, Mo

1966Although the defendant does not have to show, and indeed may be unable to show, that the evidence which he seeks to have produced would be admissible at the trial [citations], he does have to show some better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which has been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime.” (See also People v. Terry (1962) 57 Cal.2d 538, 560 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 185 , 370 P.2d 985 ]; People v. Lane (1961) 56 Cal.2d 773, 785-786 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 801 , 366 P.2d 57 ].) Our position does not reflect “a swing of the pendulum” (Louisell, Mo

1962Appellant’s motion was simply couched in language indicating he wanted to learn the facts, a “blanket request that the prosecution turn over to defense counsel all the statements which it had,” showing no “better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which ha[d] been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime.” (People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770 [ 349 P.2d 964 ].) The court’s order in response to appellant’s motion rested largely in its exercise of a sound discretion (Vetter v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.2d 132, 134 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 890 ])

1962Appellant’s motion was simply couched in language indicating he wanted to learn the facts, a “blanket request that the prosecution turn over to defense counsel all the statements which it had,” showing no “better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which ha[d] been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime.” (People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770 [ 349 P.2d 964 ].) The court’s order in response to appellant’s motion rested largely in its exercise of a sound discretion (Vetter v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.2d 132, 134 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 890 ])

1962Appellant's motion was simply couched in language indicating he wanted to learn the facts, a "blanket request that the prosecution turn over to defense counsel all the statements which it had," showing no "better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which ha[d] been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime." ( People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770 [ 349 P.2d 964 ].) The court's order in response to appellant's motion rested largely in its exercise of a sound discretion ( Vetter v. Superior Court, 189 Cal. App.2d 132, 134 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 89

1962Appellant's motion was simply couched in language indicating he wanted to learn the facts, a "blanket request that the prosecution turn over to defense counsel all the statements which it had," showing no "better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which ha[d] been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime." ( People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770 [ 349 P.2d 964 ].) The court's order in response to appellant's motion rested largely in its exercise of a sound discretion ( Vetter v. Superior Court, 189 Cal. App.2d 132, 134 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 89

1962Appellant's motion was simply couched in language indicating he wanted to learn the facts, a "blanket request that the prosecution turn over to defense counsel all the statements which it had," showing no "better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which ha[d] been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime." ( People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770 [ 349 P.2d 964 ].) The court's order in response to appellant's motion rested largely in its exercise of a sound discretion ( Vetter v. Superior Court, 189 Cal. App.2d 132, 134 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 89

1962Appellant's motion was simply couched in language indicating he wanted to learn the facts, a "blanket request that the prosecution turn over to defense counsel all the statements which it had," showing no "better cause for inspection than a mere desire for the benefit of all information which ha[d] been obtained by the People in their investigation of the crime." ( People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770 [ 349 P.2d 964 ].) The court's order in response to appellant's motion rested largely in its exercise of a sound discretion ( Vetter v. Superior Court, 189 Cal. App.2d 132, 134 [ 10 Cal. Rptr. 89

1961(People v. Estrada, 54 Cal.2d 713, 716 [2] [ 355 P.2d 641 ].) However, as was said in People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770 [10] [ 349 P.2d 964 ] : “The court properly denied the blanket request that the prosecution turn over to defense counsel all the statements which it had.

1961(People v. Estrada, 54 Cal.2d 713, 716 [2] [ 355 P.2d 641 ].) However, as was said in People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.2d 755, 770 [10] [ 349 P.2d 964 ] : “The court properly denied the blanket request that the prosecution turn over to defense counsel all the statements which it had.