Seamus saw sun rt 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FILED or ‘SuPERIgR COURT OF CALEO! WeRNSRCE CENTER SHARON PETROSINO 102 2018 Dept: W-1 Public Defender ocr 02 Pre-Trial Orange County DAVID H.YAMASAKI, Crk oftha out SCOTT SANDERS Assistant Public Defender gy, State Bar No. 159406 ® ; 14120 Beach Boulevard, Suite 200 aang ee 8! Westminster, California’ 92683 ¢ WAS Telephone: (714) 896-7281 : Fax'(714) We 368 rer 02 WE 10/5/18 veputy Est. Time: 2 hours eer sae Attorneys for Defendant Justin Weisz CTR? 0 RNNEY: OR SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA; - COUNTY OF ORANGE, WEST JUSTICE CENTER PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No.: 18WF0433 Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND v. ALTERNATIVELY TO PERMIT. DISCOVERY HEARING; POINTS AGUS ore Hence Defendant DECLARATION OF COUNSEL. SUMMARY OF ISSUES Defendant Justin Weisz seeks discovery of the items listed in Exhibit 1, which include: a) the recorded calls that he made in 2018 to counsel with the Orange County Public Defender’s Office (“OCPD”); b) any and all evidence memorializing that members of the prosecution team, including the Huntington Beach Police Department, the Orange County District Auorney’s Office (*OCDA”), and/or the Orange County Sheriff's Department (“OCSD") accessed phone calls from Defendant Weisz to the OCPD: c) statements allegedly made by Defendant Weisz to any and all jail informants or sources of information;! and d) any and all jail cell recordings capturing statements from Defendant ' This issue takes on particular importance because Weisz. was housed for a significant period of time in Module J. In testimony during special evidentiary proceedings in People 1 Motion to Compel DiscoverySecnwmiyrdvsun eon Weisz while housed in one of the Orange County jails. Defendant Weisz also seeks evidence relevant to a determination of whether the OCDA has allowed its fidelity to the OCSD to interfere with its discovery obligations in this case. This motion is being made in anticipation that the OCDA will refuse to turn over the requested evidence described above and/or will deny its existence. ‘This response by the prosecution is expected for several reasons, including that the existence of the identified materials—particularly those in categories (a) and (b) referenced above—would be inconsistent with the contents of documents recently disclosed by the OCSD and the The OCSD/GTL- disclosed two documents. The first allegedly memorializes a complete list of calls made County's long-time telephone provider, Global Tel* Link (“ by inmates at the Orange County jails to attorneys whose numbers had not been properly uploaded to a “private” list of calls not to be recorded between January of 2015 and June of 2018. (A redacted version of this list, referred to as the Recorded Calls Document?, is attached herein as Exhibit A.) The second, a list all of the recorded calls that were accessed (via playing, downloading, or burning compact disks) by the OCSD or GTL. There are 61 calls on the list, which were accessed a total of 87 times. (The Accessed Calls Document is attached in redacted form as Exhibit B.) Calls by the defendant in this case are not found on either document. Therefore, if the OCDA acknowledges the existence of any of the evidence identified in paragraphs (a) and (b), it would indicate that the two documents produced by the OCSD and GTL were purposefully incomplete and constructed to deceive, while corroborating that a vast amount of similar evidence is being withheld from other defendants, This brief analyzes these two documents closely while also focusing on critically important individuals, units, and v. Scott Dekraai, a former Special Handling deputy testified that informants and targets were placed in Module J. to assist in eliciting statements. * Counsel for Defendant Weisz obtained unredacted copies of the Recorded Calls Document and what is referred to as the Accessed Calls Document. They were not provided by any member of the OCPD. a Motion to Compel DiscoverySear sHeoK evidentiary items that the OCSD undoubtedly preferred would have been overlooked, including GTL Tech Larry Coleman, Special Operations Investigator Bill Beeman, the Special Handling and Custodial Intelligence Units, the Special Handling Work Station Log (“Work Station Log”), and the GTL Monitoring Log. As detailed below, Defendant's analysis of the currently available evidence establishes that GTL and OCSD employees have known since 2015 that calls to attorneys were being improperly recorded. Moreover, the evidence establishes that instead of stopping the wrongdoing, GTL and the OCSD conspired to allow the improper recordings to continue, while facilitating investigative access to said recordings for a period lasting at least 28 months. Along the way, the OCSD terminated a daily log used by Special Handling deputies—the same unit at the center of the informant scandal—to aid the cover up, while failing to disclose in current litigation regarding the improper use of phone calls that another log exists in which Special Handling/Custodial Intelligence deputies track their monitoring of inmate calls. During the past several months, the two entities put into action a plan to present blatantly fraudulent documents related to the recording and accessing of calls in order to mislead defendants, courts, the Board of Supervisors, and the public about the actual scope of improper recording and accessing of calls. After hiding from incarcerated defendants for years the fact that their confidential communications with counsel were recorded and subject to investigative access, by August of 2018, the OCSD and GTL could see that silence would no longer suffice. Litigation in People v. Joshua Waring brought to light that inmate calls to counsel had been recorded and accessed by the OCSD. Shifting into crisis response mode, the OCSD and GTL stated that indeed, telephone numbers had been accidentally left off a list of attorney numbers that were to be marked “private,” and that as a result, all of the calls to those numbers during the next 40 months had been improperly recorded. Because the unprotected numbers included those associated with the OCPD, the list of recorded calls was destined to be massive. However, GTL and the OCSD represented just the opposite On August 23, 2018, George McNitt, the Vice President of Technical Services for a Motion to Compel Discovery