California Bill Would Make Altering/Withholding/Modifying Material Evidence a Felony

California Assemblywoman Patty Lopez has introduced a pretty interesting piece of legislation. Under the bill,

Prosecutors who intentionally withhold or falsify evidence could be charged with a felony under a new bill winding through the state Legislature.

Specifically, the bill

would raise prosecutorial misconduct from a misdemeanor to a felony imprisonable by up to 16 months to three years.

Here’s the pertinent change:

(c) A prosecuting attorney who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully intentionally and in bad faith alters, modifies, or withholds any physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information that is required to be disclosed, information, knowing that it is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years.

Lopez’s bill moved through committee last week, and “[t]he bill is scheduled to go before the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday.” It will be considered against a backdrop of “prosecutors in Orange County fac[ing] accusations that they’ve routinely misused jailhouse informants and withheld information from defense attorneys.”

Among the attorneys supporting the bill is “Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, who says it should apply to all attorneys as well.” But

Opposing the measure is the 500-member union representing Orange County lawyers, including deputy district attorneys, public defenders and county counsel. The group’s board on Tuesday voted 8-3 to oppose the bill.

Deputy District Attorney Mena Guirguis, the union’s president, said the new bill is redundant and would clog the justice system.

“There are already safeguards in place to deal with the things the bill is trying to address,” Guirguis said. “There’s no evidence there’s an explosion of intentional violations.”

He added,” It’s going to have a wide range of (effects). Accusations will be made, investigations will have to be done, money will have to be spent, even if those things aren’t sustained, it’s going to cause a big ol’ delay.”

Many, however, would claim that the safeguards currently in place are not sufficient and that investigations should be done when there is a putative claim of a prosecutor altering/withholding/modifying material evidence.

-CM