Sealed Evidence Part of the Plea Deal?

[johnnyhands1]

www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-28/closing-the-golden-state-killer-case-with-a-pending-confession-circus-atmosphere-and-a-bar-of-gold

Here's the bothersome paragraph about the plea deal from this LA Times article about James Huddles book and JJD's behavior (boldface mine):

"But the arrangement also means there will be no grand reveal beyond what prosecutors include in their opening remarks. Evidence against DeAngelo remains sealed, leaving victims with only the declaration that a family DNA match linked DeAngelo to crimes that terrorized entire towns."


Does that mean that the evidence will remain sealed after the trial is over?  

Can a criminal trial plea deal circumvent the California Public Records Act? I don't know much about the CPRA, but it's supposed to be California's version of the Freedom of Information Act. The wikipedia article on the CPRA says there are exemptions but I don't know what they are.

EDIT:  Here's the response from 12-26-75 on the same question, so it's worth a copy-and-paste here so people can be aware (boldface mine):

---------
A protective order to seal a file and its contents is exempt from the CPRA—see Sec. 6253. “ (b) Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law", Just like when a court seals a record in a patent case to protect the intellectual property, that may not be unsealed—even by FOIA. It would take an order to unseal to break that seal.

A court would have reviewed this, and made this ruling a while back. So, normally, the entire criminal file would be able to be viewed, except for small sections that the court finds to contain personal, sensitive, or damaging information. That’s usually a fairly high standard—redacting only a few words or lines.

Since we haven’t seen the files (yet), it’s hard to say how much, and how many pages, are redacted and/or sealed. Let’s just say that the tone of the message from the court and the state as being “the entire file” is not appropriate, so we’ll hopefully find out soon.
----------

[rufus]

Jun 28, 2020 22:59:26 GMT johnnyhands1 said:

www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-28/closing-the-golden-state-killer-case-with-a-pending-confession-circus-atmosphere-and-a-bar-of-gold

Here's the bothersome paragraph about the plea deal from this LA Times article about James Huddles book and JJD's behavior (boldface mine):

"But the arrangement also means there will be no grand reveal beyond what prosecutors include in their opening remarks. Evidence against DeAngelo remains sealed, leaving victims with only the declaration that a family DNA match linked DeAngelo to crimes that terrorized entire towns."


Does that mean that the evidence will remain sealed after the trial is over?  

Can a criminal trial plea deal circumvent the California Public Records Act? I don't know much about the CPRA, but it's supposed to be California's version of the Freedom of Information Act. The wikipedia article on the CPRA says there are exemptions but I don't know what they are.

I've been surprised at how little information has leaked out over the past two years. I was impressed that law enforcement was able to be so tight lipped over this period of time.

Maybe they aren't being tight lipped. Maybe JJD never said a word and they found no evidence at his house. I have been told that allocution is not required in California. If all of these things are true, the rest of the answers may go to the grave with JJD.

I initially assumed that the prosecution would only agree to a deal like this if JJD provided a full confession. The prosecution probably lost their advantage when the defense learned of the 36 boxes of evidence loaned out to Michelle McNamara.

[ElfinEars]

Jun 29, 2020 0:35:12 GMT rufus said:

Jun 28, 2020 22:59:26 GMT johnnyhands1 said:

www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-28/closing-the-golden-state-killer-case-with-a-pending-confession-circus-atmosphere-and-a-bar-of-gold

Here's the bothersome paragraph about the plea deal from this LA Times article about James Huddles book and JJD's behavior (boldface mine):

"But the arrangement also means there will be no grand reveal beyond what prosecutors include in their opening remarks. Evidence against DeAngelo remains sealed, leaving victims with only the declaration that a family DNA match linked DeAngelo to crimes that terrorized entire towns."


Does that mean that the evidence will remain sealed after the trial is over?  

Can a criminal trial plea deal circumvent the California Public Records Act? I don't know much about the CPRA, but it's supposed to be California's version of the Freedom of Information Act. The wikipedia article on the CPRA says there are exemptions but I don't know what they are.

I've been surprised at how little information has leaked out over the past two years. I was impressed that law enforcement was able to be so tight lipped over this period of time.

Maybe they aren't being tight lipped. Maybe JJD never said a word and they found no evidence at his house. I have been told that allocution is not required in California. If all of these things are true, the rest of the answers may go to the grave with JJD.

I initially assumed that the prosecution would only agree to a deal like this if JJD provided a full confession. The prosecution probably lost their advantage when the defense learned of the 36 boxes of evidence loaned out to Michelle McNamara.

Same thoughts but what a * let down if true.

The way this entire case has been can I honestly say a last minute surprise isn't par for the course ? No but it's a huge disappointment if it happens.

Imagine finding out,despite having JJD dead to rights, the continued police ineptitude (giving a civilian evidence ) tanks JJD having give an allocution and fully confess.

If that turns out to be true I wonder if Patton will go back on tour to hail MM as the hero who helped identify JJD and solve the case?

[SCOUT]

Does this mean he goes into the courtroom, listens to the charges, pleads guilty to each, and after sentencing he goes to prison, and that's it?? This does not feel like justice to me.

[walter]

Jun 29, 2020 0:59:53 GMT SCOUT said:

Does this mean he goes into the courtroom, listens to the charges, pleads guilty to each, and after sentencing he goes to prison, and that's it?? This does not feel like justice to me.

What is justice in this case?  Can you even get anything close to it that victims would consider justice?  I don't mean people here who didn't suffer in the slightest and simply aren't getting answers they want - i mean real survivors.  What would be justice to them?

Would it be a trial but over half of the victims never have their day in court?  Would it be him dying a legally innocent man prior to a trial?  What about survivors dying before the trial is over?  Would it be him pleading to 88 crimes?  None of these are great answers and I don't know if any of them are 'justice'.  But gambling that he would live through a trial and would be found guilty of the 26 charges is risky.  Even in the best case scenario (and I think it would be pretty unrealistic to expect this) that would leave a lot of people never getting him to have to admit he was guilty.

It's a difficult situation with no great answers.  I'm glad for the survivors that got to hear him say he is guilty for the harm he did to them (as long as that's what they wanted).

[johnnyhands1]

Jun 29, 2020 0:35:12 GMT rufus said:

Jun 28, 2020 22:59:26 GMT johnnyhands1 said:

www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-28/closing-the-golden-state-killer-case-with-a-pending-confession-circus-atmosphere-and-a-bar-of-gold

Here's the bothersome paragraph about the plea deal from this LA Times article about James Huddles book and JJD's behavior (boldface mine):

"But the arrangement also means there will be no grand reveal beyond what prosecutors include in their opening remarks. Evidence against DeAngelo remains sealed, leaving victims with only the declaration that a family DNA match linked DeAngelo to crimes that terrorized entire towns."


Does that mean that the evidence will remain sealed after the trial is over?  

Can a criminal trial plea deal circumvent the California Public Records Act? I don't know much about the CPRA, but it's supposed to be California's version of the Freedom of Information Act. The wikipedia article on the CPRA says there are exemptions but I don't know what they are.

I've been surprised at how little information has leaked out over the past two years. I was impressed that law enforcement was able to be so tight lipped over this period of time.

Maybe they aren't being tight lipped. Maybe JJD never said a word and they found no evidence at his house. I have been told that allocution is not required in California. If all of these things are true, the rest of the answers may go to the grave with JJD.

I initially assumed that the prosecution would only agree to a deal like this if JJD provided a full confession. The prosecution probably lost their advantage when the defense learned of the 36 boxes of evidence loaned out to Michelle McNamara.

Didn't consider the possibility that they haven't really found anything (not just souvenirs, but any evidence of substantial value.). Maybe all they found was details that would flesh out Huddle's book, and not much more. I'd still be curious, but as Walter points out, I'm just an onlooker, not a victim/survivor. So much for "reconstructing his entire life."

[insomniac]

So JJD pleads guilty to each charge, is sentenced, and goes to prison for the rest of his natural life. How is that NOT justice? I watch a ton of true crime shows and very rarely does a criminal describe in detail, or describe at all, his crimes. Forgive me if I sound unsympathetic to anyone, but would someone explain to me what justice for this guy would be?

[SCOUT]

I really think he ought to have to face the victims and/or their families. I'm afraid he will stand there with his back to them and mumble. This reminds me of a belligerent teenager being lectured/punished, then saying under his breath, "Yeah, I did it, so what?"

[kg]

Jun 29, 2020 1:29:18 GMT insomniac said:

So JJD pleads guilty to each charge, is sentenced, and goes to prison for the rest of his natural life. How is that NOT justice? I watch a ton of true crime shows and very rarely does a criminal describe in detail, or describe at all, his crimes. Forgive me if I sound unsympathetic to anyone, but would someone explain to me what justice for this guy would be?

God will take care of the justice part, and it will be justice. I have little idea of what that will look like but until then he is just getting his due penalties under the law.

[f1guyus]

Rufus said.
“ I've been surprised at how little information has leaked out over the past two years. I was impressed that law enforcement was able to be so tight lipped over this period of time”

Me too. If I hadn’t been harping on law enforcement connections all these years postulating that EAR: A. Went to law school. Or. B. Was rejected for employment by LE in Sacramento. Or. C. Had a wire in at the Sac Sheriffs. Or. D. Was a cop himself. I’d be surprised . What I’m gonna be tomorrow if nobody addresses how Joe got away with it all these years is disappointed. And I’ll be disappointed as well if the media folks run with the press releases and don’t do any digging going forward. But not surprised. I still want to know who we went to school with in Sac just in case he was meeting some guy from the Sac Sheriff’s at the Denny’s in Newcastle to hash over old times and chew the fat about current cases. None of that would surprise me. None.

[johnnyhands1]

I updated the OP with an explanation of what can be withheld/exempt under CPRA (and here's a link for your convenience):

earonsgsk.proboards.com/post/241579

[relish]

Jun 29, 2020 1:21:06 GMT johnnyhands1 said:

Jun 29, 2020 0:35:12 GMT rufus said:

I've been surprised at how little information has leaked out over the past two years. I was impressed that law enforcement was able to be so tight lipped over this period of time.

Maybe they aren't being tight lipped. Maybe JJD never said a word and they found no evidence at his house. I have been told that allocution is not required in California. If all of these things are true, the rest of the answers may go to the grave with JJD.

I initially assumed that the prosecution would only agree to a deal like this if JJD provided a full confession. The prosecution probably lost their advantage when the defense learned of the 36 boxes of evidence loaned out to Michelle McNamara.

So much for "reconstructing his entire life."

I told you on the other site not to put any stock in that phrase. 

Actually there are plenty of empty phrases in this thread. I'm glad my instincts incorporate the real world.

[paulienyc84]

Jun 29, 2020 0:47:46 GMT ElfinEars said:

Jun 29, 2020 0:35:12 GMT rufus said:

I've been surprised at how little information has leaked out over the past two years. I was impressed that law enforcement was able to be so tight lipped over this period of time.

Maybe they aren't being tight lipped. Maybe JJD never said a word and they found no evidence at his house. I have been told that allocution is not required in California. If all of these things are true, the rest of the answers may go to the grave with JJD.

I initially assumed that the prosecution would only agree to a deal like this if JJD provided a full confession. The prosecution probably lost their advantage when the defense learned of the 36 boxes of evidence loaned out to Michelle McNamara.

Same thoughts but what a * let down if true.

The way this entire case has been can I honestly say a last minute surprise isn't par for the course ? No but it's a huge disappointment if it happens.

Imagine finding out,despite having JJD dead to rights, the continued police ineptitude (giving a civilian evidence ) tanks JJD having give an allocution and fully confess.

If that turns out to be true I wonder if Patton will go back on tour to hail MM as the hero who helped identify JJD and solve the case?

Oh yes, you can bet your bottom dollar that Patton will still call his wife a hero and praise how she "got him".  But he will never mention how her involvement could have compromised a guilty plea.  I really am shocked about that.  For someone that seemingly cared so much about getting the victim's justice, I can't believe she would do something that would possibly let an identified JJD go free.  I'm starting to wonder if her agenda was simply to solve the case and credit herself.  I'm hoping that's not the case.  I'm hoping that she really didn't know the damage that would be done by her taking the records. 

[lindalout123]

Jun 29, 2020 1:47:09 GMT kg said:

Jun 29, 2020 1:29:18 GMT insomniac said:

So JJD pleads guilty to each charge, is sentenced, and goes to prison for the rest of his natural life. How is that NOT justice? I watch a ton of true crime shows and very rarely does a criminal describe in detail, or describe at all, his crimes. Forgive me if I sound unsympathetic to anyone, but would someone explain to me what justice for this guy would be?

God will take care of the justice part, and it will be justice. I have little idea of what that will look like but until then he is just getting his due penalties under the law.

Yes!!

[walter]

Jun 29, 2020 3:47:11 GMT paulienyc84 said:

Jun 29, 2020 0:47:46 GMT ElfinEars said:

Same thoughts but what a * let down if true.

The way this entire case has been can I honestly say a last minute surprise isn't par for the course ? No but it's a huge disappointment if it happens.

Imagine finding out,despite having JJD dead to rights, the continued police ineptitude (giving a civilian evidence ) tanks JJD having give an allocution and fully confess.

If that turns out to be true I wonder if Patton will go back on tour to hail MM as the hero who helped identify JJD and solve the case?

Oh yes, you can bet your bottom dollar that Patton will still call his wife a hero and praise how she "got him".  But he will never mention how her involvement could have compromised a guilty plea.  I really am shocked about that.  For someone that seemingly cared so much about getting the victim's justice, I can't believe she would do something that would possibly let an identified JJD go free.  I'm starting to wonder if her agenda was simply to solve the case and credit herself.  I'm hoping that's not the case.  I'm hoping that she really didn't know the damage that would be done by her taking the records. 

It’s important to not blame her. She didn’t mission impossible her way into the police station and steal the files. She and Paul haynes went in and were told they could take whatever they wanted. LE’s job is to not let this happen. It wasn’t her job to not do something she was told they could do. 

If it’s anyone’s ‘fault’ it’s LE’s not hers. 

nor in anyway was she the only civilian (non victim) with case files.