Scribd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1

People v. Daleiden and Merritt

- AG Opposition to Compel Discovery (2502505/1700662)

R

OB

B

ONTA

A

TTORNEY

G

ENERAL

J

OHNETTE

V.

J

AURON

Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 183714 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 510-3803 Fax: (415) 703-1234 E-mail: Johnette.Jauron@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for the People of the State of California

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v. DAVID ROBERT DALEIDEN, AND SANDRA SUSAN MERRITT,

Defendants. Case No. 02502505/17006621

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; DECLARATION OF VICTORIA TERRY; DECLARATION OF JOHNETTE JAURON

Date: September 13, 2021 The Attorney General of the State of California respectfully submits the following Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery in that there is no responsive discovery to compel. ARGUMENT Defense counsel is requesting discovery based on a claim that DAG Jauron committed prosecutorial misconduct and violated her duty of candor to this Court by making a false representation and providing seized evidence to unauthorized persons. Defendants' claim is unfounded.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2



Defendants' claim is based on two sentences, taken out of context from a conversation about different issues at the June 23, 2021, hearing. Specifically, Defendants allege that "DAG Jauron admitted at the prior Zoom hearing on May 21 that she had discussions with NAF about the federal injunction. She also stated at that hearing she had given NAF everything that she had given to the defendants." Def. Mot. 4:9-11. However, a complete reading of the transcript from that hearing indicates that between those two sentences DAG Jauron said "I have no idea what you're talking about. What evidence do they not have access to?" R.T. 7:3-4. Whereupon, this exchange occurred: THE COURT: Well, I'm not -- what I'm more suggesting is -- and you may be correct. There may be no issue here, but what I am concerned about, and have been concerned about at other points through the trial, is there's different standards between this federal civil case that has been resolved and a criminal trial. The defendant -- the criminal defendants have different rights than a -- either a plaintiff in a civil -- federal civil suit, so I think that just needs to be kept in mind when there are issues brought up along this line. You understand what I mean by that? MS. JAURON: No, I don't. I don't understand what you mean. I provided N.A.F. with everything that I provided Defendants and I don't have a clue what you're talking about. THE COURT: I don't mean with your failure to disclose information to anyone. I have -- I have ruled on your disclosures and you have been forthwith with that. That is not the issue I'm trying to convey to you. The issue is N.A.F.'s attempt to limit the use of discovery based on the Federal Civil Order. The exchange reflects that there were multiple issues being discussed by the multiple participants in the conversation, and while somewhat inartful and overbroad, neither of the identified sentences provide a factual basis upon which this court can find the existence of relevant evidence. There is none. The issue was addressed specifically at the June 23, 2021, hearing wherein the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: What is your informal discovery request? MR. FERREIRA: I want every communication: Text, e-mail, et cetera, between NAF and the Attorney General's office from the service of the search warrant on

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3



Mr. Daleiden's home until the present. I want to know if this statement is true. It's not an ambiguous statement, it's not a statement that was prompted by any questions from us, it was not coerced. The statement is: I provided NAF with everything that I provided the defendants. MS. JAURON: And for the record, that is completely taken out of context. I did not provide evidence to NAF. THE COURT: Okay. I think you have a response to the informal request, that she did not provide them with any information. Go ahead. MR. FERREIRA: Based on the statement she gave, I should not have to accept that. Attached is a declaration from DAG Jauron as well as a declaration from Senior Legal Assistant Victoria Terry, averring that no evidence or search warrant materials have been provided and that none of the material in the motion to compel exists. CONCLUSION The Defendants' motion lacks factual foundation. It appears to derive from a statement taken out of context predicated on their continuing assumption of a conspiracy theory that does not exist. The People respectfully request this Court deny the motion. Dated: August 23, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, ROB

BONTA

A

TTORNEY

G

ENERAL

J

OHNETTE

V.

J

AURON

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for the People of the State of California