In what circumstances have the courts imposed sanctions or recusal of the entire district attorney's office based on the improper interception of attorney's communications?

16. As in Morrow, other cases imposing sanctions based on prosecutorial interception of defense communications seem to involve direct invasions of attorney-client privilege. Thus in People v. Garewal (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 285, the entire district attorney's office was recused after a prosecutor read part of an interview between the defendant and his attorney's investigator. In People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, the district attorney removed the deputy originally assigned to the case after a prosecution investigator under the deputy's supervision destroyed an audiotape containing defense counsel's strategy notes. In that case the court found neither dismissal nor recusal of the elected district attorney warranted.

16. As in Morrow, other cases imposing sanctions based on prosecutorial interception of defense communications seem to involve direct invasions of attorney-client privilege. Thus in People v. Garewal (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 285, the entire district attorney's office was recused after a prosecutor read part of an interview between the defendant and his attorney's investigator. In People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, the district attorney removed the deputy originally assigned to the case after a prosecution investigator under the deputy's supervision destroyed an audiotape containing defense counsel's strategy notes. In that case the court found neither dismissal nor recusal of the elected district attorney warranted.