## Facts

- Borland International suspected its executive, Eugene Wang, of providing confidential information to Gordon Eubanks of Symantec, a competitor.
- Borland reported the matter to the Santa Cruz County District Attorney, whose office had limited resources for a complex trade-secret/computer-crime investigation.
- Borland offered to fund technical experts used in the investigation.
- Two computer specialists were retained; one billed Borland directly, and the other’s invoices were routed through the district attorney for Borland’s payment.
- Borland paid approximately $13,000 toward investigative expenses.
- A grand jury indicted Wang and Eubanks for conspiracies including stealing trade secrets, receiving stolen property, and unauthorized access to computer data.
- During proceedings, the trial court expressed doubt that the information qualified as criminal trade secrets, raising questions about the strength of the prosecution.
- Defendants moved to disqualify the district attorney’s office, arguing Borland’s payments created a conflict by making the prosecutor reluctant to dismiss, reduce charges, or negotiate fairly.

## Issues

1. Whether a district attorney must be recused under California Penal Code § 1424 when an alleged crime victim pays substantial investigative expenses for the prosecution.
2. Whether such victim-funded assistance can constitute a conflict “of such character and magnitude” that it is unlikely defendants will receive fair treatment throughout the criminal proceedings.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that victim-funded investigative assistance may disqualify a district attorney under Penal Code § 1424 when it creates a sufficiently severe conflict.
- The Court concluded Borland’s payments created a conflict of interest for the district attorney’s office.
- Although the trial court did not expressly articulate the full statutory “character and magnitude” test, the Supreme Court held that, on this record, ordering recusal would not be an abuse of discretion.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial court’s recusal order.

## Legal Principles

- Under Penal Code § 1424, disqualification requires more than a conflict in the abstract; the conflict must be so grave that it is unlikely the defendant will receive fair treatment during all portions of the criminal proceedings.
- An alleged victim’s financial contributions to prosecution-related investigation can create a disqualifying conflict when the amount and circumstances reasonably create prosecutorial indebtedness to the victim.
- The analysis is fact-specific and may consider the contribution’s size relative to the prosecutor’s resources, the directness of the payment arrangement, and whether the tie could affect charging, dismissal, or plea decisions.
- A mere appearance of impropriety is insufficient by itself, but it may be relevant insofar as it reflects a real likelihood of unfairness.

## Conclusion

The court held that when an alleged victim substantially finances investigative work for the prosecutor, the resulting sense of obligation can amount to a conflict warranting recusal under Penal Code § 1424 if it is likely to compromise fair treatment across the case, and it upheld the trial court’s recusal order on the record presented.


People v. Eubanks, 14 Cal. 4th 580, 927 P.2d 310 (Cal. 1996)