California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Nielsen v. Superior Court, 55 Cal.App.4th 1150, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 566 (Cal. App. 1997):
Respondent court's ruling was not based upon the right of the codefendants to confront the government witnesses. It was based rather on the codefendants' right to defend themselves by the use of potentially exculpatory evidence. A defendant has a due process right to all substantial material evidence favorable to an accused which is known to the prosecution. " 'That duty exists regardless of whether there has been a request for such evidence [citation], and irrespective of whether the suppression was intentional or inadvertent.' [Citation.]" (Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356, 378, 285 Cal.Rptr. 231, 815 P.2d 304.) The duty is the duty of the prosecution not the duty of codefendants. As petitioner points out, nowhere in the discovery statutes or in the cases construing them is the requirement that one defendant be obligated to provide "materially exculpatory" evidence to a codefendant, much less that one defendant provide privileged records to a codefendant. 3
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.