People v. Dekraai, G051696M

Inmate Scott Dekraai pled guilty to eight counts of murder; pretrial hearings focused on alleged prosecution misconduct during custodial-informant interactions and discovery practices.
OCSD SHU deputies used jail informants (Perez, Moriel) who were placed near represented defendants and took notes; some informants expected or received benefits.
OCDA prosecutors and investigators met with an informant (Perez), then obtained OCSD approval to place a recording device in Dekraai’s cell; the OCDA later conceded it would not use those custodial statements in the penalty phase.
After an initial multi-month evidentiary hearing, the trial court found significant negligent Brady/Massiah-related discovery violations but denied full recusal; it barred use of custodial statements at penalty phase.
Newly discovered OCSD TRED records (internal jail entries documenting housing/classification moves) revealed that SHU deputies had withheld information and gave inconsistent testimony; the trial court found OCSD deputies intentionally withheld or lied about TRED and concluded OCDA had a divided-loyalty conflict.
The trial court recused the entire Orange County District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting Dekraai’s penalty phase and imposed evidentiary sanctions; the Court of Appeal affirmed that recusal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People/AG)	Defendant's Argument (Dekraai)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in recusing the entire OCDA under Penal Code § 1424	Recusal was unnecessary because OCSD misconduct (not OCDA) caused the problems; any discovery gaps were addressed by sanctions and production; statutory recusal requires evidence of an extraneous interest	OCDA had an institutional/divided-loyalty conflict with OCSD (failing to supervise, producing incomplete discovery, and benefiting from OCSD CI program) that made fair prosecution unlikely	Affirmed: substantial evidence OCDA had a conflict (divided loyalty to OCSD) and the conflict was grave enough to warrant recusal of the entire office under § 1424
Whether recusal is required by due process	AG: statutory remedy under § 1424 covers the issues; no constitutional violation because OCDA did not actively conceal TRED and past misconduct is remedied	Dekraai: OCDA’s loyalty to OCSD was an extraneous interest that impaired its duty, violating due process protections for a fair trial	Held: court concluded the OCDA’s divided loyalty amounted to an extraneous interest undermining its fiduciary duty; recusal was a proper remedial measure to protect due process

Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706 (stating §1424 recusal standard and abuse-of-discretion review)
People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler, 60 Cal.4th 335 (recusal limited to cases with extraneous prosecutorial interests; recusal aims to secure future fairness)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (Sixth Amendment prohibits deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements from represented defendant)
In re Neely, 6 Cal.4th 901 (Sixth Amendment Massiah principles applied in California)
People v. Lewis, 53 Cal.App.4th 1277 (institutional conflicts and recusal where prosecutor implicated in misconduct)
Hollywood v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 721 (role of prosecutors and importance of prosecutorial integrity)