Skip to content
Name: Chambers v. Superior Court
Case #: S143491
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 11/26/2007
Summary

Trial counsel may use derivative information from a prior Pitchess disclosure on behalf of a subsequent defendant making a Pitchess motion in a later case. Chambers filed a Pitchess motion through his attorney and received no information concerning the officer in question. Later, his attorney learned that Pitchess information about the officer had been disclosed in another case. The trial court held that Chambers was precluded from using the information from the other case. The appellate court held that the information should have been disclosed, subject to a protective order, and that the attorney would not violate the protective order in the other case by using the derivative information acquired from the other case. The California Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of Appeal. When complainant information has been disclosed to counsel, who, when later representing a different defendant, succeeds under Pitchess in discovering the same complainant information relating to the same officer, counsel may then use the derivative information uncovered in the subsequent case.