Melcher v. Superior Court of Calaveras County
10 Cal. App. 5th 160
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Shawn J. Melcher was criminally charged with assault with a deadly weapon and related offenses; one alleged victim was Alan Serpa.
- Alan Serpa is married to Barbara M. Yook, the Calaveras County District Attorney, creating a potential conflict of interest.
- Melcher moved under Penal Code § 1424 to disqualify (recuse) the District Attorney’s Office, arguing Marsy’s Law rights held by the DA as the victim’s spouse would make fair treatment unlikely.
- The DA assigned Deputy District Attorney Seth Matthews to the case and implemented an ethical (Chinese) wall; Matthews was supervised by a Deputy Attorney General (Michael Canzoneri).
- The trial court found a conflict existed but concluded the DA had no personal involvement, had waived victim participation, had erected an effective ethical wall, and therefore denied recusal.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and denied Melcher’s writ petition, holding substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DA’s marriage to victim requires recusal of entire DA’s Office under § 1424 | Melcher: DA’s status as victim’s spouse (Marsy’s Law) creates conflict so grave it makes fair treatment unlikely; DA may act or be called as victim | People: DA recused herself from participation; case assigned to deputy; ethical wall and AG supervision prevent DA influence | Denied: mere marital relationship does not mandate recusal where ethical wall, AG supervision, and DA’s waiver remove likelihood of unfairness |
| Whether ethical wall and AG supervision sufficiently insulate prosecution from DA’s influence | Melcher: skeptical that wall and supervision will prevent bias or influence | People: wall and Deputy AG supervision effectively prevent DA input; Matthews is protected from at-will removal | Held: substantial evidence supports effectiveness of wall and supervision; no breach shown |
| Whether DA will be a required witness or exercise Marsy’s Law victim rights such that recusal is necessary | Melcher: DS may testify about bail/sentencing and exercise victim rights, injecting herself into prosecution | People: DA waived Marsy’s Law participatory rights; DA did not investigate or witness the assault so testimony unlikely | Held: DA waived victim participation; no evidence she would be a percipient witness; unlikely to testify |
| Whether small office size or other factors make recusal appropriate despite safeguards | Melcher: small office increases risk DA’s interest will influence deputies | People: no evidence of actual influence; Matthews’s employment protections lessen risk | Held: office size considered but insufficient without evidence of influence; presumption of proper discharge stands |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gamache, 48 Cal.4th 347 (ethical walls can mitigate conflicts and support denial of recusal)
- People v. Vasquez, 39 Cal.4th 47 (recusal requires evidence that office conduct would likely be influenced by personal interest)
- People v. Eubanks, 14 Cal.4th 580 (defendant bears burden to show conflict so grave fair trial unlikely)
- People v. Conner, 34 Cal.3d 141 (recusal where prosecutor’s personal involvement and discussions likely prejudiced coworkers)
- Packer v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 695 (two-step § 1424 inquiry: reasonable possibility of partiality and whether that renders fair treatment unlikely)
- People v. Choi, 80 Cal.App.4th 476 (recusal upheld where ethical wall failed and DA publicly injected himself into prosecution)
- People v. Bryant, Smith & Wheeler, 60 Cal.4th 335 (recusal of entire office requires showing deputies would likely be influenced by personal interest)
- People v. Hernandez, 30 Cal.4th 835 (distinguishing cases where supervising prosecutor was a percipient witness)