The California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District ruled that confidential information used by former Governor Schwarzenegger does need not be revealed to the inmate whose parole date was reversed. (Ochoa v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County Brice Glasgow, Real Party in Interest, 2011 DJDAR 15293).
The governor reversed the parole date of Brice Glasgow, serving a term of 30 years to life for a first-degree murder, based in part on confidential material indicating that Glasgow was suspected of “selling his prescribed cancer pain reliever or doing something inappropriate with it” in 2008.
Glasgow challenged the governor’s decision reversing his parole grant in a petition filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. The Superior Court gave the warden a choice between producing an unedited copy of the confidential information and providing it to Glasgow, or opposing Glasgow’s petition challenging the parole reversal without relying on the confidential material.
The warden then challenged the Superior Court’s order in the Court of Appeal claiming that disclosure of the confidential information would endanger the safety and security of the informants and the institution.
The Court of Appeal balanced Glasgow’s interest in being able to challenge the accuracy of the confidential information against the state’s interest in not disclosing information that will harm an informant. The Court decided to hold an in camera or closed hearing in then judge’s chambers for the purpose of providing Glasgow’s attorney with as much of the confidential information that could be revealed without disclosing the identities of the informants.
The governor’s decision to reverse Glasgow’s parole date also relied on other factors including the crime, lack of responsibility, as well as negative conduct in prison and his substantial criminal history.