University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Douglas v. Cooley CJ-CA-0012
Docket / Court BS138170 ( State Court )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Criminal Justice (Other)
Jail Conditions
Policing
Attorney Organization ACLU of Southern California
Case Summary
On July 10, 2012, a criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit under the U.S. Constitution and state law against the Los Angeles County Police and District Attorney in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County. The plaintiff is represented by a consortium of public ... read more >
On July 10, 2012, a criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles County filed a lawsuit under the U.S. Constitution and state law against the Los Angeles County Police and District Attorney in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County. The plaintiff is represented by a consortium of public interest organizations and scholars (including the ACLU of Southern California). The plaintiff requested declaratory and injunctive relief against the District Attorney (DA) and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD), claiming that the two organizations systematically deny due process under the constitution to criminal defendants. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that a series of formal policies regarding evidence that would otherwise indicate the innocence of a defendant ("exculpatory evidence") is suppressed in violation of state law, the California constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Between December 2010 and July 2011, three inmates in the Los Angeles Men's Central Jail had been charged with various crimes relating to assaults on corrections officers. In these cases, the defendant's attorney (the plaintiff) requested from the prosecution whether or not the officers involved in the assault had a history of having brutality complaints filed against them. According to state law, the LASD was required to keep a history of complaints as part of the officer's files for five years. In each of these three cases, the prosecution replied that there was no "discoverable information."

According to the plaintiff, several officers involved in these cases had a history of beating inmates, and a history of complaints being filed against them, and the convictions of these three criminal defendants are in doubt. The plaintiffs allege that this information was concealed as a result of a series of policies of both the District Attorney and the Sheriff's Department:

(1) The Sheriff's Department does not mark information for disclosure unless the reviewing deputy believes by 'clear and convincing evidence' that the information is true. The plaintiffs allege that this is a violation of Supreme Court precedent
(2) The Sheriff's Department records incidents of complaints about corrections' officers' violations in the complaining inmate's file, not the correction's officer's file. Plaintiff alleges this is a violation of California Penal Code § 832.5, which requires maintenance of the records in the officer's file for five years.
(3) The DA's office requests a prosecutor to confer with a special unit, and personally convince the compliance attorney that information is exculpatory by 'clear and convincing' evidence. Plaintiff alleges that this is a violation of California Penal Code § 1054.1, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
(4) The DA's office only discloses exculpatory material to the defense when it is included in the compliance unit's database. Because the compliance attorney must be convinced of the truth of the information, the plaintiff claims that this screening process leads to a systematic violation of the Due Process clause and the California Penal Code § 1054.1(e).
(5) It is the policy of the DA's office to suppress any exculpatory information that is part of another ongoing criminal or administrative investigation. Because the pendency of an investigation can be used as a way to shield exculpatory information from criminal defendants, the plaintiff claims this is a systemic violation of the Due Process Clause.

Following the lawsuit, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department implemented a new system of reporting and tracking complaints against deputies by employee number and name. LASD also manually reviewed inmate complaints from the past five years to ensure that relevant complaints were added to the database. Finally, LASD agreed to notify local defense attorneys about the new policy so attorneys whose clients have pending cases know that they can renew their requests and may receive information that had been withheld under the old policy. As a result, the ACLU dropped the charges against the LASD.

The ACLU then filed an amended complaint, which included claims against the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office for preventing or prohibiting disclosure of favorable evidence to criminal defendants. There is no further information available as of February 15, 2016.

Blase Kearney - 07/23/2012
Anna Jones - 02/15/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Male
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Assault/abuse by staff
False arrest
Grievance Procedures
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Records Disclosure
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action State law
Defendant(s) Los Angeles District Attorney
Los Angeles Police Department
Plaintiff Description A criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles County
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU of Southern California
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing JC-CA-0073 : Rosas v. Baca (C.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Links Philadelphia Forfeiture
http://ij.org/case/philadelphia-forfeiture/
By: Institute for Justice (Institute for Justice)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
No docket sheet currently in the collection
General Documents
Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief 07/09/2012
CJ-CA-0012-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source:
Judges None on record
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Brennan, Michael J. (California)
CJ-CA-0012-0001
Gluck, Benjamin (California)
CJ-CA-0012-0001
Ogletree, Charles J. (District of Columbia)
CJ-CA-0012-0001
Rosenbaum, Mark Dale (California)
CJ-CA-0012-0001
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -