People v. Conner
California Supreme Court
666 P.2d 5 (1983)
- Written by Casey Cohen, JD
Facts
In 1980, James Conner (defendant) was charged with robbery and other crimes. Deputy District Attorney Braughton prosecuted the charges. While waiting for Conner’s trial to begin, Braughton heard loud noises coming from the jury room, where Conner was being kept in the sheriff’s custody. Braughton ran to the jury room and discovered that Conner had stabbed and shot the sheriff. Conner then attempted to shoot Braughton and escaped, but was later caught and charged. Braughton told his supervisor about the incident and made a written report to the district attorney (DA). The DA told 10 of the 25 prosecutors at the DA’s office about the incident. Braughton also gave several interviews to the news media about the incident. Conner’s case was reassigned to Deputy District Attorney Nudelman. Braughton had never discussed the case with Nudelman. At trial, Conner moved for a recusal of the judge and the entire DA’s office from his case. Conner argued that the DA’s office should be removed if there was even the appearance of a conflict. The trial court denied the recusal of the judge and the DA’s office on the original criminal charges, but granted recusal on the escape charges because Braughton was a witness to the event and a potential victim. The prosecution challenged the recusal of the DA’s office.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Richardson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
