Discovery: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
''People v. Gonzalez'' (2006) 38 Cal.4th 932 | ''People v. Gonzalez'' (2006) 38 Cal.4th 932 | ||
==Defense request to have prosecution do investigation== | |||
“‘Although the prosecution may not withhold favorable and material evidence from the defense, neither does it have the duty to conduct the defendant's investigation for him.’ ” (People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263, 288–289, quoting People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082.) | |||
“the prosecutor had no constitutional duty to conduct defendant's investigation for him.” (People v. Morrison (2004) 34 Cal.4th 698, 715.) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:31, 14 September 2025
People v. Washington (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 311
Discovery of impeachment of defense witnesses
People v. Tillis (1998) 18 Cal.4th 284
People v. Gonzalez (2006) 38 Cal.4th 932
Defense request to have prosecution do investigation
“‘Although the prosecution may not withhold favorable and material evidence from the defense, neither does it have the duty to conduct the defendant's investigation for him.’ ” (People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263, 288–289, quoting People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082.)
“the prosecutor had no constitutional duty to conduct defendant's investigation for him.” (People v. Morrison (2004) 34 Cal.4th 698, 715.)