## Facts

- A Los Angeles County grand jury indicted police captain Harry M. Lorenson and others for conspiracy to (1) commit robbery, (2) commit assault with a deadly weapon, and (3) pervert or obstruct justice or the due administration of the laws.
- The alleged target of the scheme was Alfred Pearson, a radio shop operator with a poor local reputation; neighborhood anger rose after publicity involving a dispute over a small repair bill.
- Lorenson previously directed arrests and prosecutions of Pearson; Pearson and Lorenson were hostile toward one another.
- Evidence presented to the grand jury indicated Lorenson involved himself in a dispute between Pearson and Mrs. Phillips and, within roughly 24 hours before Pearson was badly beaten, interacted with a lawyer and individuals associated with Mickey Cohen.
- After the beating and related disturbance, several men were arrested and taken to a police station; during that period Lorenson and an attorney made inquiries to the station about whether arrests had occurred.
- Soon after, an acting captain ordered the suspects released and arrest notes destroyed, and later publicly denied any arrests had been made.
- Lorenson sought a writ of prohibition to stop the superior court from trying the case, arguing (1) the grand jury evidence was insufficient to connect him to any crime and (2) the indictment did not properly allege conspiracy to obstruct justice.

## Issues

1. Whether prohibition may issue to stop a criminal trial based on alleged insufficiency of evidence presented to the grand jury.
2. Whether the grand jury record contained some evidence from which a rational inference could be drawn that Lorenson participated in the charged conspiracies.
3. Whether an indictment adequately alleges conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice when it charges interference with police processes, including release of suspects, destruction of notes, and denial of arrests.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of prohibition.
- The Court held that the grand jury evidence need only provide some rational ground to believe the accused committed the offense; the reviewing court does not weigh conflicts or credibility.
- The Court concluded there was some evidence from which the grand jury could infer an unlawful agreement involving Lorenson, including coordinated acts surrounding the assault and subsequent efforts to impede investigation.
- The Court held the indictment sufficiently charged conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice and was not facially defective.
- Because the superior court did not exceed its jurisdiction in proceeding to trial, prohibition did not lie.

## Legal Principles

- Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and generally is unavailable to test the strength of the prosecution’s case where the trial court has jurisdiction and the indictment is not void on its face.
- An indictment will be sustained if there is some competent evidence before the grand jury that supports a rational inference of guilt; courts reviewing by extraordinary writ do not reweigh evidence.
- A conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence; an agreement may be inferred from concerted action and surrounding circumstances.
- “Perverting or obstructing justice” is a permissible object of a conspiracy, and allegations of manipulating arrests, suppressing or destroying police records, or denying official action can sufficiently plead that object when read as a whole.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the conspiracy prosecution to proceed, holding that limited writ review does not permit reweighing the grand jury record and that an indictment alleging coordinated violence followed by interference with police procedures adequately states a conspiracy to obstruct justice.


Lorenson v. Superior Court, 35 Cal. 2d 49, 216 P.2d 859 (Cal. 1950)