People v. Dekraai
5 Cal. App. 5th 1110
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Scott Evans Dekraai pled guilty to eight murders; pretrial proceedings focused on whether the Orange County District Attorney's Office (OCDA) must be recused from the penalty phase under Penal Code §1424.
- Evidence showed OC Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) used jailhouse confidential informants (CIs) who were placed near represented defendants to elicit statements; some CI activity and documentation (TRED records) were not timely disclosed.
- OCDA prosecutors and investigators met with a CI (Perez) who obtained statements from Dekraai; prosecutors later obtained permission to record Dekraai’s cell. OCDA ultimately conceded a Massiah violation and agreed not to use custodial CI statements in its penalty-phase case-in-chief.
- After an initial six-month evidentiary hearing the trial court found negligent but not outrageous prosecutorial misconduct and denied full recusal; later-discovered TRED records led to a second hearing where the court found OCSD deputies (and some testimony) not credible and concluded evidence of systemic discovery failures supported recusal.
- The trial court concluded OCDA had an institutional conflict of interest (a divided loyalty to OCSD) that made it unlikely Dekraai would receive a fair penalty trial and recused the entire OCDA; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People/AG) | Defendant's Argument (Dekraai) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by recusing the entire OCDA under §1424 | OCDA had no disqualifying conflict; OCSD misconduct, not OCDA, was to blame; sanctions cured prejudice | OCDA had a conflict of interest (institutional divided loyalty to OCSD) and systemic discovery failures made fair prosecution unlikely | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports recusal of entire OCDA for conflict that likely prevents fair penalty trial |
| Whether prosecutorial/law-enforcement conduct required dismissal or was merely sanctionable | Misconduct attributable mainly to OCSD; evidentiary sanctions sufficient | Misconduct (Brady/Massiah violations, concealment of TRED) required stronger remedial measures including recusal | Court: misconduct was negligent/prosecutorial and sanctionable; not dismissal, but recusal was warranted to protect future fairness |
| Whether newly discovered TRED records changed relevance of other-case evidence | TRED discovery does not show OCDA knew or concealed; does not justify recusal | TRED shows systemic nondisclosure and OCSD/OCDA coordination; demonstrates continuing risk of unfairness | Held: TRED evidence made other-case misconduct relevant and supported finding of institutional conflict and loss of confidence in OCDA |
| Standard and scope for recusal of an entire prosecutor’s office under §1424 | Recusal of whole office is drastic and requires strong proof; remedy unnecessary here | §1424 allows prophylactic removal when conflict makes fair trial unlikely; full-office recusal justified here | Held: recusal is discretionary; given institutional incentives and persistent discovery failures, full-office recusal was within court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706 (California Supreme Court) (standard of review and §1424 two-part test)
- Bryant v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 335 (California Supreme Court) (recusal principles; disfavored nature of whole-office recusal)
- Trinh v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.4th 216 (California Supreme Court) (defendant’s heavy burden when seeking whole-office recusal)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. Supreme Court) (prosecutorial duty to disclose exculpatory material)
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (U.S. Supreme Court) (Sixth Amendment prohibition on government agents eliciting incriminating statements from a represented defendant)
- In re Neely, 6 Cal.4th 901 (California Supreme Court) (Massiah-related standard for informant acting as government agent)
- Greer v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 255 (California Supreme Court) (legislative history and purpose of §1424)
- Eubanks v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.4th 580 (California Supreme Court) (institutional conflicts and §1424 background)