## Facts

- James Edward Conner faced Santa Clara County charges for armed robbery, burglary, possession of stolen property, and forgery, prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Braughton, head of a career criminal unit.
- While Conner awaited trial in custody, an incident occurred in a jury room in which Conner stabbed and shot a deputy sheriff, attempted to shoot Braughton (a nearby prosecutor), and escaped before being recaptured.
- Braughton heard gunfire, entered the area, observed Conner holding a revolver near the wounded deputy, and fled as Conner swung the gun toward him; a shot was fired and a bullet hole was later observed near where Braughton had been standing.
- Braughton reported the incident to supervisors, prepared an internal written report, discussed his experience with roughly 10 of about 25 felony prosecutors in the office, and gave media interviews.
- The escape-related case was reassigned to another deputy district attorney who had not discussed the matter with Braughton.
- Conner moved to recuse both the trial judge and the entire district attorney’s office from both the original charges and the escape-related charges, citing conflict concerns.
- The trial court denied recusal as to the original charges but granted recusal of the entire district attorney’s office as to the escape-related charges because Braughton was a witness and arguably a victim.
- The People appealed the order recusing the entire district attorney’s office; review proceeded under Penal Code § 1424.

## Issues

1. Under Penal Code § 1424, does recusal of an entire district attorney’s office require only an “appearance” of conflict, or must the conflict be so grave that it makes it unlikely the defendant will receive a fair trial?
2. Whether a deputy district attorney’s role as a key witness and arguable victim, combined with dissemination of his account within the office, can justify office-wide recusal for the affected prosecution.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order recusing the entire Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting the escape-related charges.
- The Court held that § 1424 authorizes recusal only when a conflict is so grave in nature as to render it unlikely the defendant will receive a fair trial, not merely because there is an appearance of conflict.
- Applying that standard, the Court concluded the circumstances surrounding Braughton’s involvement created a sufficiently serious risk to trial fairness in the escape-related prosecution to warrant disqualification of the entire office.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 1424 requires disqualification of a prosecutor or prosecutorial office only when a conflict of interest is so grave that it is unlikely the defendant will receive a fair trial.
- A mere appearance of impropriety, without a substantial risk to the fairness of the proceedings, is insufficient for recusal under § 1424.
- Office-wide recusal may be proper when the conflict is reasonably attributable to the office as an institution, including where a member of the office is a central witness and arguable victim and the circumstances create a realistic risk of bias affecting prosecutorial decisions.
- Disqualification should be limited to the specific proceeding affected by the conflict rather than automatically extended to unrelated prosecutions of the same defendant.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed disqualification of the entire district attorney’s office from the escape-related case because the conflict created by a deputy prosecutor’s witness/victim status, and the resulting institutional risk to prosecutorial neutrality, was sufficiently serious under Penal Code § 1424 to make a fair trial unlikely, while rejecting disqualification based solely on an appearance of conflict.


People v. Conner, 666 P.2d 5 (Cal. 1983)