Summary
California Supreme Court case to review lower court rulings that had disqualified a public prosecutor for opposing the disclosure of an 8 year-old sexual abuse victim's confidential psychotherapy records. Both the mother of the victim and the victim's therapist objected to the disclosure of the records. However, the victim's father, who is also the accused molester's brother, consented to the release of the records. The prosecutor believed that the father's consent should not be sufficient for disclosure because of the father's conflict of interest in the case. The prosecutor then objected to the consent and filed a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem for the victim. The court denied the prosecutor's motion, and later granted the defense's motion to disqualify the prosecutor. The court found the prosecutor had incurred a conflict of interest by seeking to represent the victim's interests. The appellate court later agreed with this ruling. CJLF joined the appeal to the California Supreme Court to argue the lower courts had misinterpreted the duties of the prosecutor. The prosecutor had a duty to enforce the law as a representative of a party to the case, and as such, the prosecutor had the right to participate in litigation affecting the proceeding. CJLF argued a prosecutor acts within the lawful range of his or her duties by acting as a zealous advocate for both the victim and the people of California. The lower courts had an obligation to respect the prosecutor's duty, as well as the rights and interests of crime victims. The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the prosecutor's actions were proper and not a conflict of interest. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
