◆ SpookStack

ij Cash v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 24 72, 75 (1959). The defendant ‘has presented material, by way ‘of declarations“and*agficavits, wa hich | meet hor burden of demonstrating that the evidensSisous! Ny discovered would ba helpful to her defense, ' Pitchess” | ‘Court, Suora. Additional evidence detailing the miscondi *j. in the Norton, Schoenberger—Jones and Cuenca raids is inthe hanes ‘ ef the F.B.I. and/or the Los Angeles Police Department and is : i highly relevant to the defense Additional warrantless raids, $ =. — wiretaps and other misconduct mayShav occurred in connection with “ GS : other reported sightings of. the dé éfendants. The broad discovery 12 rules established in Pitchess, supra, “ead recently reaffirmed in 'Murauia v. Hunicipal Court, 117 Cal. “pete. 888 (1975), require that the defendant be granted the Opportunity to discover infor~ relevant to a‘edally recogpized Gefense based on governmental misconduct. 17 8 ‘ mation concerning such incidents since this evidence is cGirectly . It is not legaily sufficient for the prosecution to. mt merely reply that it knows of no additional acts of misconduct. _ \ , Supra, at 396. The Prosecution has been supplied with { Bantu antities of information and evidence which were collected by ‘24 conduct ang” ‘this shifts the burden to the Prosecution to establish 25; the lack. of taint. fastigar ve. U.S., SUPEa. y, - . 7 mee 27 An adversary hearing at which representatives of the- . 20) various law enforcement agencies could be called to testify as to S. “me29} acts of alleged misconduct is both appropriate and legally neces- sary. It is well established, that defendants in a eriminal pro- 7 31] cecding must have - access to any evidence or tnfornation obtained 32 as a result of governmental misconduct - An adversary hearing, » : tes SET, : esas tae eA rn petat tasted . 7 caieaneinantinne sera 72 SS