|
PITCHESS UPDATES
Vol. Seven No. One - March 30, 2007
RECENT MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN PITCHESS DICOVERY LAW
Vol. Six No. One - July 7, 2006
MORE RECENT MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN PITCHESS DICOVERY LAW
Vol. Five No. Three - June 15, 2005
WARRICK V SUPERIOR COURT (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)
2005 Cal. LEXIS 5782 (June 2, 2005)
Vol. Five No. Two - January 20, 2005
BRILEY V. SUPERIOR COURT (HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPT)
2004 DJDAR 14790 (December 13, 2004)
Vol.
Five No. One - May 24, 2004
PEOPLE v. GUTIERREZ (October 30, 2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1463
Vol.
Four No. Two - May 1, 2003
ANOTHER VERY GOOD PITCHESS DECISION
Vol.
Four No. One - March 4, 2003
WELCOME SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE LIMITS OF PITCHESS TYPE DISCOVERY
Vol.
Three No. Three - August 15, 2002
PRIOR EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHIN FIVE YEARS MUST NOW BE PROVIDED AS PART OF PITCHES MOTION DISCOVERY
Vol.
Three No. Two - May 23, 2002
A CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT FINALLY ADDRESSES
THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN BRADY VIOLATIONS AND PITCHESS DISCOVERY
Vol.
Three No. One - March 14, 2002
FILING AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PITCHESS DISCOVERY
UNDER SEAL IS ALLOWED, BUT THE AGENCY HAS ACCESS TO IT
Vol.
One No. Three - December 13, 2000
CALIFORNIA APPEALS COURT ISSUES VERY GOOD PITCHESS
DECISION ON THE DISCOVERABILITY OF DISHONESTY RECORDS
Vol.
One No. Two - November 8, 2000
FIVE YEAR LIMITATION ON THE DISCOVERY OF COMPLAINTS
FROM POLICE OFFICERS PERSONNEL FILES IS NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE
Vol.
One No. One - August 1, 2000
ROUTINE DESTRUCTION OF POLICE PERSONNEL FILES
IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT VIOLATE THE BRADY RULE
|
