Is There Anything I Can Do When The Law Has Indiscriminately Enforced Against Me?

A court cannot preclude from the discovery process evidence of discriminatory enforcement of the law against defendants and can be a valid defense in state and federal criminal proceedings. Criminal defendants may obtain a discovery order directing the prosecutor to produce information relevant to defendants’ claim that various penal statutes are being indiscriminately enforced against them.

In Murgia v. Municipal Court, several union members were charged with misdemeanor crimes stemming from a picketing event and organizational activities of union members. The defendants pursued the discover process against the prosecution as they are generally entitled to discover all relevant and material information in the prosecution’s possession which will assist him in preparation and presentation of his defense in a criminal prosecution case. Based on the information discovered of previous law enforcement conduct and practices, the defendants claimed they would not have been prosecuted except for specific discrimination against them.

The trial court totally denied defendants’ motion for discovery against the prosecution with respect to their contention of discriminatory enforcement of the law against them. This ruling was an error for two reasons: (1) a conscious policy of selective enforcement directed against members or supporters of a particular labor organization is prima facie discriminatory and invalid under the equal protection clause; and (2) that the union members demonstrated the prosecutorial authorities’ selective enforcement decision “was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification” thus making them a protected group under equal protection. (Italics added.)

An administrative policy which singles out individuals for prosecution on the basis of their exercise of the right to join the union of their choice is, at least presumptively, unjustifiable and invidious within equal protections requirements. Thus, allegations that a county’s law enforcement authorities undertook a practice of “intentional, purposeful and unequal enforcement of penal statutes” against the class of individuals who belong to, or who are associated with, a designated labor organization, were clearly sufficient to support a claim of invidious discrimination which is prima facie invalid. Thus, the court held that a selective enforcement policy based upon membership in a particular labor organization is presumptively unjustifiable.

The trial court improperly foreclosed discovery with respect to defendants’ claim of discriminatory prosecution. It is recognized that a criminal defendant may defend a criminal prosecution on the ground that he has been the subject of such “intentional and purposeful” invidious discrimination. In light of the materiality of this defense, traditional principles of criminal discovery mandate that defendants be permitted to discover information relevant to such a claim. Accordingly, the trial court erred in barring all access to such information in the possession of the prosecution.

This is a very little known defense but could determine the outcome of your case if your attorney is knowledgeable in this defense.  The Law Offices of Michael S. Carrillo will explore any and all options regarding your case including a possible Murguia defense.  Contact us now for a free consultation and we will fight hard for you on your criminal matter.  Call us today at (626) 799-9375.