Hollywood v. Super. Ct. 10/5/06 CA2/6

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B188550

Case Date: 12/20/2006

Preview:Filed 10/5/06

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

JESSE JAMES HOLLYWOOD, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

2d Crim. No. B188550 (Super. Ct. No. 1014465) (Santa Barbara County)

This is a companion case to Haraguchi v. Superior Court (Oct. 5, 2006, No. B191161) (Haraguchi). In this death penalty case, Jesse James Hollywood, petitioner, seeks a writ of mandate directing the respondent trial court to grant his motion to recuse the Office of the District Attorney of Santa Barbara County. In the alternative, petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the recusal motion. Petitioner contends that, because of the role of the assigned prosecutor's, Ronald J. Zonen's (Zonen), role in the making of a film about the case, "that prosecutor has demonstrated a bias and conflict of interest warranting recusal." "Based on the lack of evidence that [the District Attorney] was unaware of the prosecutor's disqualifying conduct," petitioner also contends that the entire prosecutorial office should be recused.

We originally summarily denied the petition. The Supreme Court granted review and directed us to issue an order to show cause. We now conclude that the trial court erred by denying the recual motion as to Zonen, but correctly denied recusal as to the entire Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office.1 Factual and Procedural Background On October 30, 2000, the District Attorney of Santa Barbara County (hereafter District Attorney) filed a two-count indictment against petitioner and four codefendants: Ryan Hoyt, William Skidmore, Jesse Rugge, and Graham Pressley. Count 1 charged them with the murder of Nicholas Markowitz. (Pen. Code,

Download Hollywood v. Super. Ct. 10/5/06 CA2/6.pdf