What is the consequence of an investigator listening to attorney-client privileged communications?

Medina argues the case against him should have been dismissed, or the district attorney's office recused from prosecuting the case, because an investigator for the district attorney's office listened to telephone calls between Medina and his counsel, which had been recorded by the Riverside County jail in violation of Penal Code section 636, subdivision (a). (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The prosecution established there was not a substantial threat of demonstrable prejudice to Medina. (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 964.) We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by selecting a lesser sanction than dismissal or recusal for the violation of Medina's attorney-client privilege.