Packer v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 4th 695

Packer seeks to recuse the Ventura County district attorney under Penal Code section 1424, which provides a two-stage process with affidavits at stage one and an evidentiary hearing at stage two if a prima facie case is shown.
The case involves a triple homicide in 2009 and related charges, with DNA linking Packer to the scene developed after an arrest for unrelated offenses.
Two indictments were filed: three counts of first-degree murder and related robbery/burglary enhancements, plus a later indictment adding Davina Husted’s murder and related offenses.
The defense moved to recuse the lead prosecutor in September 2012, supported by 54 affidavits and 350 attachments, asserting personal and family connections to potential defense witnesses.
The trial court denied an evidentiary hearing and denied the recusal; the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court reviewed on discretionary grounds, with the Court ultimately reversing and directing an evidentiary hearing.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve material factual disputes about the prosecutor’s personal involvement and interference with defense witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing under 1424	Packer—conflicts are real; affidavits show interference with defense access to witnesses	People—no disabling conflict; inferences support evenhanded handling	Yes; an evidentiary hearing was required
Whether the prosecutor’s personal involvement rendered fair trial unlikely	affidavits show potential bias and interference with witnesses	no direct evidence of improper motive or actions	Yes; requires live testimony to assess credibility and gravity of conflict
Whether the defense could show conflict from the prosecutor’s relationships and actions	relationships with witnesses and social ties create conflict	relationships are incidental and not disabling	Ambiguity persists; factual disputes necessitate hearing
Whether the court could rely on redacted materials to decide the motion	redacted affidavits leave gaps affect credibility	redactions were appropriate; not dispositive	Court must consider unredacted evidence at an evidentiary hearing
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied standard to abuse of discretion	Court should defer only when no live testimony could change outcome	Affirmance appropriate if no prima facie case	Court of Appeal erred; standard requires live testimony in light of disputed facts

People v. Conner, 34 Cal.3d 141 (Cal. 1983) (conflict requires a reasonable possibility of unfairness in DA’s actions)
People v. Eubanks, 14 Cal.4th 580 (Cal. 1996) (conflict alone not enough; must show likelihood of unfairness)
Spaccia v. Superior Court, 209 Cal.App.4th 93 (Cal. App. 2012) (broad discretion to hold evidentiary hearings under 1424; not limited to disputed facts only)
Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706 (Cal. 2008) (two-stage process; weighing conflict and likelihood of fair trial)
In re Scott, 29 Cal.4th 783 (Cal. 2003) (credibility determinations require live testimony in some habeas contexts)
Hollywood v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 721 (Cal. 2008) (capital-case considerations; relevance to evidentiary hearings)