No. 23-5905

Daniel Kristof Lak v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2023-10-27
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: brady brady-disclosure conflict-of-interest conflicts-of-interest criminal-investigation criminal-procedure due-process impeachment-evidence law-enforcement law-enforcement-witness prosecutorial-ethics witness
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-03-01 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment information under Brady should be extended to include mandating the disclosure of conflicts of interest and material impeachment information when a law enforcement witness, themselves, becomes the subject of an unrelated criminal investigation

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED When a law enforcement witness in a criminal trial, themselves, becomes the subject of an unrelated criminal investigation, the prosecution is faced with the dilemma of how to preserve the officer’s reputation as a witness in one criminal trial, while being tasked with the duty to investigate the same law enforcement witness, now turned potential defendant, in another criminal trial. Wherefore, the Question Presented is: (i) Whether a prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment information under Brady should be extended to include mandating the disclosure of conflicts of interest and material impeachment information when a law enforcement witness, ; themselves, becomes the subject of an unrelated criminal investigation, thereby ensuring that no member of law enforcement is “above the law” and that all members of a prosecution team are to be “above reproach.” 1 .

Docket Entries

2024-03-04
Rehearing DENIED.
2024-02-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2024.
2024-02-02
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2024-01-08
Petition DENIED.
2023-12-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-10-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 27, 2023)

Attorneys

Daniel Lak
Daniel Kristof Lak — Petitioner