SAN FRANCISCO — As jury selection began Monday, June 22, in a San Francisco criminal trial, defense attorneys renewed allegations that prosecutors continued to provide late discovery despite prior sanctions and court orders, prompting Judge Michael Begert to authorize the defense to litigate the issue before the jury.
Before beginning jury selection, Judge Michael Begert heard a motion from Deputy Public Defender Jared Rudolph seeking additional sanctions and remedies because of further late discovery in the case, which is set to proceed to trial, by District Attorney Rachael McDaniels.
Rudolph filed the motion following additional emails and communications provided to him by Assistant District Attorney McDaniels on June 18, just after the judge had ordered sanctions for a previous late-discovery violation by the prosecution. Vanguard coverage of that late discovery and the sanctions can be found here.
Rudolph began by telling the court that he had again received vital information from investigations that occurred more than two years ago, in what he argued was a clear violation of discovery guidelines.
“I am concerned that noncompliance is continuing,” Rudolph said, stating that the prosecution “[has] not complied, and is continuing to ignore or forget about orders from the court.”
Rudolph further said, “It is hard to distinguish between malice and incompetence” regarding the conduct of the District Attorney’s Office and its failures to disclose vital evidence in a timely manner.
An additional concern Rudolph expressed was that, because the case had already reached the jury-selection stage, the court might be reluctant to postpone proceedings or impose further sanctions.
“I’m concerned that we will not have a proper remedy, because the jury is already here,” Rudolph said. He also explained that, without meaningful penalties, he is “worried that there is no change in how the prosecution practices.”
In discussing potential remedies, Judge Begert stated that, despite the repeated and continuing violations alleged by the defense, Rudolph was “not gonna get a dismissal,” and asked what other remedies he would seek.
Rudolph responded that he is “worried we’re gonna sweep it under the rug because the jury is outside [the courtroom],” and argued that the violations were not limited to this case.
“I don’t think this is limited to the actions of any one prosecutor,” Rudolph said, adding that the office’s conduct as a whole was an ongoing issue.
Ultimately, Begert ruled that the remedy would be to allow Rudolph and the defense to litigate matters involving the late discovery before the jury during trial, ensuring jurors would be fully aware of the repeated instances of late discovery alleged in the case.
