Jimenez v. Superior Court
Annotate this Case
A death row inmate petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate the superior court's discovery order in a habeas corpus proceeding. In the petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner claimed that the jury at his capital trial impermissibly considered the opinion of at least one alternate juror in deciding his guilt. In the petition for writ of mandate, petitioner argued that the superior court abused its discretion in ordering discovery regarding the statements of any alternative jurors petitioner had interviewed.
The Court of Appeal held that discovery in habeas proceedings following an order to show cause may exceed the scope of the criminal discovery scheme. However, the court held that the qualified work product protection applies to discovery beyond that scope and -- at this juncture of the proceedings -- precludes the superior court's discovery order. Accordingly, the court granted petitioner's requested relief.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.