Motions to Compel Discovery – California Criminal Procedure

When Can a Defendant Force the Prosecution to Turn Over Evidence?

Under both Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83, 1963) and California Penal Code §§ 1054–1054.7, prosecutors are required to disclose evidence that is favorable to the accused. This includes material that may help the defense or cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. These materials are commonly referred to as discovery.

Discovery is the formal process of exchanging evidence between the prosecution and defense before trial. It ensures that both sides have access to the information needed for a fair proceeding. A prosecutor violates their Brady obligations when three conditions are met:

  1. The evidence is favorable to the accused.
  2. It was suppressed by the state.
  3. The defendant suffered prejudice as a result.

This duty extends to information known by anyone working with law enforcement, including police investigators. In short, if evidence could help the accused, the prosecution must disclose it. A motion to compel can be used to employ the power of the court to force a prosecutor’s hand if the evidence isn’t turned over in a timely manner, or exclude evidence.

The General Rule on Discovery Timing

In California criminal cases, discovery deadlines are primarily governed by Penal Code § 1054 and related case law. Generally, required disclosures must occur at least 30 days before trial, unless good cause is shown for delay. Discovery is a continuing obligation that extends through trial and, in some cases, after conviction.

Courts typically prefer that discovery be completed during the pretrial phase to prevent interruptions once trial begins. City of Alhambra v. Superior Court (205 Cal.App.3d 1118, 1988) emphasizes that discovery should occur early so both sides have a fair opportunity to litigate the issues.

“Discovery procedures should be conducted during the pretrial period, thereby providing all parties concerned with a fair opportunity to litigate whatever controversies may arise and avoiding the need to interrupt, stay, or compromise the trial.”
City of Alhambra v. Superior Court

Practical Considerations in Felony and Misdemeanor Cases

In practice, judges rarely compel discovery in felony cases before the preliminary hearing. Courts often justify this delay by citing efficiency or by viewing the hearing as a screening tool rather than a full trial. Unfortunately, this approach frequently disadvantages defendants who need timely access to evidence to prepare an effective defense.

Even when a defendant asserts the right to a speedy trial, most felony trials are scheduled more than 30 days after the preliminary hearing. As a result, motions to compel discovery before the hearing are often denied.

In misdemeanor cases, where no preliminary hearing exists, judges tend to be more willing to order discovery promptly. The shorter timeline before trial makes early disclosure essential for fairness and adequate preparation.

In short, filing a motion to compel before a preliminary hearing rarely succeeds in a felony case. After the hearing, however, courts are generally more receptive to enforcing discovery rights.

The Good Cause Exception

To compel discovery earlier than 30 days before trial, a defendant must show good cause. According to Penal Code § 1054.7, good cause exists only in specific situations:

  1. There is a threat or danger to a victim or witness.
  2. There is a risk of loss or destruction of evidence.
  3. There is a risk of compromising another investigation.

The California Supreme Court reaffirmed this narrow definition in People v. Thompson (1 Cal.5th 1043, 2016), emphasizing that courts should apply the statute strictly when determining whether to compel early disclosure.

“‘Good cause’ is limited to threats or possible danger to the safety of a victim or witness, possible loss or destruction of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigations by law enforcement.”
People v. Thompson

How to Obtain the Evidence You Need

When prosecutors delay or fail to disclose critical materials, defense counsel must act quickly. Filing a motion to compel discovery under Penal Code § 1054.5 forces the prosecution to comply or justify their withholding of evidence. Skilled attorneys know how to identify missing discovery, document violations, and seek court orders that level the playing field.

At Radford & Rome, LLP, we have extensive experience confronting discovery violations and holding prosecutors accountable. Our attorneys are former California prosecutors who understand the inner workings of the system and the tactics used to delay or limit disclosure. We use that insight to anticipate opposition, cite controlling authority, and push the court to compel timely production of all evidence.

Our reputation for thorough preparation and tenacious advocacy helps us secure results for our clients across Los Angeles, Riverside, and Kern Counties. Whether it involves a discovery motion, suppression hearing, or trial preparation, we fight to ensure our clients receive full access to the information they are entitled to under the law.

Why You Should Hire Radford & Rome, LLP

If the prosecution is withholding evidence or delaying disclosure, you need experienced defense counsel who knows how to force compliance. The attorneys at Radford & Rome, LLP are former prosecutors who understand how discovery works from both sides of the courtroom. We know how to expose violations, pressure the state to turn over evidence, and protect your rights. Call our office today for a confidential consultation.