Santa Clara County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
2006-2007 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report ARE Telephone Calls Between Attorneys and Inmates Really
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
Some DOC classification unit staff members are not adequately trained to handle contacts by privileged individuals regarding procedures for adding their phone numbers to the privileged call database.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
All employees in the classification unit should be fully trained to understand DOC’s procedures regarding the database for privileged individuals.
F2
There are no visible signs in the visitor sign-in area advising individuals on how to add their phone numbers to the privileged call database.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
A sign should be prominently posted with instructions regarding procedures for including telephone numbers in the privileged call database. This can also be accomplished with a separate sign-in sheet or with appropriate bold lettering on the sign-in sheets.
F3
The privileged call database is not kept up to date. Offices of the District Attorney, Public Defender and Department of Correction:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The DOC should use the biannual California Bar Association’s list of new attorneys to update its privileged database to include phone numbers of newly admitted local attorneys. Offices of the District Attorney, Department of Correction, and Public Defender:
F4
Safeguards are lacking to ensure, on a consistent basis, that privileged telephone calls are not released to prosecutors. Also lacking are procedures to ensure that court-ordered production of DOC telephone recordings are complied with promptly. 6
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The DOC, DA, and PD should coordinate their efforts to establish, and stringently follow, procedures to ensure that privileged telephone calls are consistently not released to prosecutors, and that court-ordered production of DOC telephone recordings are promptly complied with. 7
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 6The Offices of the DA and PD are adamant that neither would tolerate deliberate violations of California Penal Code Section 636(a), or violations of the constitutional rights of inmates. To this end, the Office of the DA’s recently revised policy on attorney- client communications addresses the procedures prosecutors should follow. The Grand Jury applauds all three Departments for their efforts to prevent conduct which will ultimately prevent class action suits and blemishes on the County’s justice system, such as those currently inflicting Riverside County (see, Medina v. Riverside County, November 20, 2006). The Grand Jury concludes that Santa Clara County is best served by prohibiting deliberate illegal procedural violations. This will result in freeing the County from having to defend itself against possible litigation involving avoidable violations of inmates’ rights, or worse, the possibility of having to release convicted criminals.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Santa Clara County District Attorney
Elected County Office
Santa Clara County Public Defender
Elected County Office