JUNE 1, 1998

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY GIL GARCETTI ISSUED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TODAY:

Since 1993, our office has filed 85 cases in which wiretap surveillance techniques were utilized.

"In every one of these cases, the wiretap surveillance was judicially authorized and monitored. Additionally, in cases in which the wiretap surveillance revealed exculpatory information, this information was provided to the defendants.

"The defendants in 58 cases were provided with no information concerning the wiretap surveillance while their cases were pending. In each of these 58 cases, the wiretap surveillance revealed no exculpatory information.

"In some of these 58 cases, the defendants have sought discovery of the existence of wiretap surveillance, and our office has sought judicial review in camera of the defendants' discovery requests. Our office has argued against disclosure because premature disclosure would terminate ongoing criminal investigations.

"The courts previously have ruled that no discovery must be provided to the defendants. For the first time, in People v. Gaxiola, et. al., the court concluded that discovery is required even when the wiretap revealed no exculpatory information. In addition, the Office of the Los Angeles County Public Defender has filed a writ of habeas corpus addressing these discovery issues.

"In response to these developments, our office has conducted a review of our policies and procedures governing the disclosure of valid wiretap surveillance. We intend to continue litigating these issues, both in People v. Gaxiola and in this habeas litigation.

"In addition, we are adopting an interim policy, pending final judicial review of all these issues, governing future wiretap surveillance cases under which all defendants will be provided notice of wiretap surveillance consistent with the court's ruling in People v. Gaxiola.''