Criminal procedure: postconviction discovery.

Assembly Member Schultz’s measure reframes postconviction discovery for felonies resulting in incarceration in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation by expanding access to discovery materials, broadening who is considered “the prosecution,” and adding a structured mechanism to shield jury notes, while also introducing a phase‑in retention obligation for defense counsel.

Key changes include a broadened scope for discovery materials: materials that the defendant would have been entitled to at trial, plus items that tend to negate guilt, mitigate the offense or sentence, or are otherwise favorable or exculpatory, including materials that would be discoverable if the defendant were being tried today. The definition also explicitly includes the prosecution’s jury selection notes and expands “the prosecution” to include both the prosecuting agency and counsel for the respondent in a habeas corpus petition. The bill allows courts to limit disclosure through a two‑step process: the prosecution must provide a foundational proffer if it seeks to shield jury notes, and the court must conduct an in‑camera review with redactions if good cause is found; a lack of exercised peremptory challenges during jury selection can constitute good cause for withholding notes.

The measure retains a postconviction pathway to access physical evidence where there is good cause to believe it is necessary for relief, and it preserves an existing DNA‑testing framework for such access. It also preserves the defendant’s obligation to cover actual costs of examination or copying. A central new obligation is a retention requirement for trial counsel: for all felony convictions resulting in CDCR incarceration, counsel must retain digital color copies of every item in the client’s file, with electronic copies sufficient only if every item is digitally copied in color and preserved, effective for convictions on or after July 1, 2026. In the same time frame, trial counsel are to begin retaining both physical files and digital color copies for all qualifying felony convictions, creating a significant administrative and data‑management duty for defense practitioners.

From a fiscal and regulatory perspective, the bill acknowledges that expanded discovery and the retention mandate could generate state‑mandated local costs, potentially triggering reimbursement under the Government Code if the Commission on State Mandates so determines. The defendant would bear the actual costs of examination or copying, which may affect the viability of certain postconviction petitions. The act also contemplates protective orders and in‑camera review as mechanisms to manage sensitive materials, including jury notes, and it embeds these changes within a broader framework of existing discovery rules and postconviction procedures, with a phased implementation that begins the retention requirements several years after passage.