Trial court erred in finding Pride had not met the RJA’s minimal pleading requirement for appointment of counsel. To be entitled to counsel, petitioners must only allege facts that would establish a violation of the RJA. (PC 745.) Pride satisfied this minimal requirement when he alleged that his trial counsel had a discussion with the prosecutor regarding the importance of Pride’s conviction to avoid future incidents of racial unrest.

Pride demonstrated a plausible justification for RJA discovery. Further, at the discovery stage, the alleged discussion was sufficient to demonstrate a plausible justification that a RJA violation has occurred.  The court of appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to conduct a new hearing on the discovery motion to weigh the Alhambra factors. (City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1118.)

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E085951.PDF