PROSECUTORS ’ PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE Reflections on Garcetti v . Ceballos By Bruce

What does it mean for prosecutors to seek justice? How independent should prosecutors be in endeavoring to seek justice? And how should their professional independence be secured? These fundamental questions lie beneath the surface of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006). The case arose out of a lawsuit filed by Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney, against District Attorney Gil Garcetti and two supervisors in the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office. According to Ceballos’s complaint, while serving as a supervisor in a branch office, he fielded a defense lawyer’s allegation that a deputy sheriff had lied in an arrest warrant affidavit. After personally conducting an investigation, which included a visit to the location described in the affidavit and an interview of the deputy sheriff, Ceballos became convinced that the affidavit in fact contained serious misrepresentations. He spoke to his supervisors about his concerns and sent them a memorandum setting out the facts and his conclusions and recommending that the case be dismissed. Ceballos’s supervisor rejected the recommendation and asked Ceballos to soften the memorandum before showing it to the sheriff’s department, which he did. However, contrary to his supervisor’s further direction, Ceballos provided defense counsel a redacted memorandum containing the facts contradicting the affidavit, believing that he was required to do so to fulfill his duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). He was later called to testify at a hearing in the case, and did so truthfully. Thereafter, Ceballos suffered adverse employment actions, which he believed to be retaliatory. Unable to win relief through the employment grievance process, Ceballos brought a civil rights action, claiming that the district PROSECUTORS’ PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE Reflections on Garcetti v. Ceballos