Prosecutors May Stay on Cases Despite Role in Fictionalized Crimes, Court Says
The California Supreme Court has refused to kick two prosecutors off pending cases over alleged conflicts of interest caused by their participation in fictionalized portrayals of crimes.
In one of the rulings, the court said “only an actual likelihood of unfair treatment, not a subjective perception of impropriety” warrants removal of a prosecutor from a rape case, the Los Angeles Times reports.
The rape defendant had opposed prosecution by Joyce Dudley of Santa Barbara because she had written a novel about a rape with details similar to allegations in his case. He contended Dudley had an incentive to refuse a plea bargain and go to trial in an effort to promote the book. A trial judge had ruled the fictional rape case was not related to the actual one.
In the second decision, the court refused to disqualify another Santa Barbara prosecutor, Ronald Zonen, for turning over his files in the prosecution of Jesse James Hollywood for his alleged role in the 2000 murder and kidnapping of a 15-year-old boy. A movie based on the case, Alpha Dog, was released last year. Zonen had said he hoped the movie would lead to the apprehension of Hollywood, who had fled to Brazil before he was captured, the New York Times reports. Zonen was not paid as a consultant.
The supreme court said Zonen’s actions did not amount to a conflict of interest imperiling Hollywood’s right to a fair trial. “That is not to say that Zonen can or should escape censure,” the opinion said. “We find his acknowledged actions in turning over his case files without so much as an attempt to screen them for confidential information highly inappropriate and disturbing.”
Hollywood’s lawyer, James Blatt, said he may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. He told the Los Angeles Times the ruling “sends a wrong message to prosecutors and defense attorneys.”
