When will the District Attorney's interest in the case be considered a conflict of interest?

Even without the waiver, and more importantly, "a next-of-kin impact statement is not evidence presented by the prosecution, and the victim's family has the right to make such a statement regardless of the prosecutorial agency that handles the case. [Citations.]" (People v. Petrisca (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 189, 198, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 182.)

Fifth, there is no evidence any of the deputy attorneys in the office have been influenced by the district attorney's interest in the case. Influence on a continuing prosecution is a major factor courts consider when determining whether to recuse a district attorney or her office. (See Packer v. Superior Court, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 699, 709-711, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 41, 339 P.3d 329 [no recusal required where prosecutor's children know defendant and may be called to testify, but evidentiary hearing on recusal motion required to address evidence showing the prosecutor influenced his children's testimony and obstructed discovery];

[215 Cal.Rptr.3d 878]

People v. Vasquez, supra, 39 Cal.4th 47, 55, 57-58, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 372, 137 P.3d 199 [recusal of district attorney's office upheld where evidence showed a conflict of interest influenced the prosecution: the prosecuting attorney refused to discuss defendant's request to waive jury trial because defendant was the son of the district attorney office's administrator and stepson of a deputy district attorney].) Here, there is no evidence Matthews has treated or will treat petitioner differently than he treats other defendants merely because of the district attorney's interest. Even his employment as a deputy district attorney is protected against her will unless he gives legitimate cause.

[10 Cal.App.5th 169]