Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate, Super.Ct.No. RIF136890, Paul E. Zellerbach, Judge.
Rod Pacheco, District Attorney, and Carlos E. Monagas, Deputy District Attorney, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, J.
Law Offices of John D. Barnett, John D. Barnett and Albert A. Newton for Real Party in Interest.
In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
We first find that the trial court erred in ordering the district attorney to produce campaign documents relating to his campaign for state office. While such documents may be available through subpoena or otherwise (see People v. Superior Court (Barrett)(2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1305), they are the private documents either of the district attorney or any legal entity relating to his campaign. He is no more subject to forced “discovery” of his private materials than would be any other member of his office.
Next, we find that nothing in Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 or Murgia v. Municipal Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 286 requires or authorizes the court to order discovery relating to prosecutorial bias not rising to the level of a defense. We also question whether real party in interest made an adequate showing of need to rummage through the district attorney’s internal memoranda and electronic communications. The basic facts on which she relies to show that the district attorney is biased against her are plain. She and the court can, and should, inquire of the prosecuting attorneys handling her case whether there has been any direct or indirect pressure on them with respect to their approach to the matter. Representations of a prosecutor as an officer of the court should normally be accepted as truthful. (See In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, fn. 14; Rhaburn v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1566.) Real party in interest can present to the court evidence to establish that the district attorney is biased against her and can also inquire as to whether this bias has been communicated to the prosecuting attorneys. The trial court handling any recusal motion can then evaluate whether in fact it is likely that any bias will result in unfair treatment of real party in interest and her case.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order for nonstatutory discovery, and to enter a new order denying real party in interest’s motion.
This order does not affect real party in interest’s options to obtain materials from the district attorney or his campaign through other means.
The previously ordered stay is dissolved.
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J., McKINSTER J.