People v. Uribe (199 Cal. App. 4th 836, 2011)

Opinion

DUFFY, J.

In April 2008, this court reversed the judgment entered against defendant Augustin Santillah Uribe, who had been convicted two years earlier of sex crimes involving his granddaughter, Anna. (People v. Uribe (Apr. 24, 2008, H030630) [nonpub. opn.] (Uribe).) Our reversal was based on the failure of the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) to disclose to the defense a videotape of a medical examination of Anna. There was no suggestion from the record in that case that the prosecutor himself knew about the videotape before defendant was convicted. We concluded, however, that the SART unit was part of the prosecution team, and therefore its nondisclosure of the videotape constituted Brady error (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [10 L.Ed.2d 215, 83 S.Ct. 1194]) that was prejudicial to the defense.

On remand, defendant filed a motion to recuse the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, claiming that the district attorney and members of the SART unit had conspired to violate state law by not documenting that the latter had videotaped its examinations of alleged victims of sexual assault, • thereby preventing members of the defense bar from obtaining critical information in sexual assault cases. Defendant also filed a nonstatutory motion to dismiss the information based upon the alternative grounds of double jeopardy and outrageous prosecutorial misconduct in violation of his due process rights. Defendant argued in the motion to dismiss that members of the SART unit and the prosecutor had been aware of the videotape at the time of the first trial and had suppressed it in order to thwart defendant’s effort to obtain an acquittal.

After extended evidentiary hearings and briefing on the motions, the court denied the motion to disqualify the district attorney. It denied the motion to dismiss made under double jeopardy principles, but it granted the motion on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct. The court concluded that Troy Benson, the deputy district attorney who had prosecuted the first trial, had testified untruthfully in the hearings on the motions. In a strongly worded opinion, the court found the existence of “egregious prosecutorial misconduct committed following reversal for a Brady violation [that was] ... so grossly shocking and outrageous that it offends the universal sense of justice to allow prosecution in this matter to proceed.” (Original italics.)

The People contend that the court erred in dismissing the information. We agree. A court may dismiss an information in an extreme case to address outrageous governmental conduct. A prosecutor’s false testimony in any court proceeding is a grave affront to the judicial system. It is undoubtedly an act that is “outrageous” in a general, nonconstitutional sense. When such prosecutorial misconduct impairs a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial, it may constitute outrageous governmental conduct warranting dismissal. But here the false testimony occurred in a peripheral hearing and was not shown to have prejudiced defendant’s right to a fair trial. The misconduct thus did not constitute outrageous governmental conduct in violation of due process. Accordingly, while we acknowledge the trial court’s understandable and profound concern about the former prosecutor’s misconduct, including his false testimony, the court chose the wrong remedy. We will reverse the dismissal order.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Prior Trial

Defendant was charged by a second amended information filed in February 2006 with five felony sex offenses against Anna, namely, three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child (violation of Pen. Code, § 269; counts 1 through 3), and two counts of lewd or lascivious acts on a child (violation of § 288, subd. (a); counts 4 and 5). A jury trial commenced in February 2006 before the Honorable Paul Bernal. We summarize relevant evidence from the prior trial in the succeeding two paragraphs.

Anna, defendant’s granddaughter, was 12 years old and was attending the seventh grade at the time of the trial. She testified that on one occasion before she started kindergarten, her grandfather went into her room and digitally penetrated her vagina. In another incident when Anna was five, defendant came into the living room where she was sleeping, lay down next to her, removed her clothes, and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. When Anna was nine and on a family trip to Tijuana, defendant lay down next to her in the back of his van, pulled her pants and underwear down, and had forcible intercourse. And when Anna was 11 years old, defendant had her sit on his lap, put his hand under her pants and panties, and digitally penetrated her vagina.

There was a significant amount of medical testimony at the trial. (See Uribe, supra, H030630 [nonpub. opn.].) Mary Ritter, a physician’s assistant and clinic coordinator at the Center for Child Protection (Center) in the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (Valley Medical), conducted a SART examination of Anna in July 2005. She used a colposcope, which has a camera attached to it that permits the examiner to take magnified photographs. Several photographs taken by Ritter during her examination of Anna were introduced as exhibits. Ritter opined that there was a V-shaped configuration indicating that there had been a prior hymenal tear consistent with the occurrence of a penetrating event. A defense expert, Dr. Theodore Hariton, a retired obstetrician and gynecologist, opined, based upon records and photographs from the SART exam, that “with reasonable medical certainty this [penetrating trauma] did not happen.” He relied in particular on one photograph, defense exhibit I, as depicting what “can well be a normal hymen.” Dr. David Kerns—a pediatrician and the Center’s medical director—testified in rebuttal “that there was definite physical evidence of penetrating trauma to [Anna’s] hymen.” Dr. Kerns singled out one particular photograph in support of his conclusion. He also testified that the photo exhibit on which Dr. Hariton had relied was a bad photo and did not even depict the patient’s hymen.

On March 3, 2006, the jury convicted defendant on counts 2 through 5 and acquitted him on count 1.

II. Posttrial Proceedings

Defendant filed a motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence (i.e., the SART video). The motion was based in part upon the declaration of defense counsel, Alfonso Lopez, who declared that he had (1) made a written pretrial request to Benson for all photos and documentation relating to the SART exam; (2) filed a pretrial motion to release documents subpoenaed from Valley Medical concerning Anna; (3) received, before trial, a medical report, photos and laboratory findings concerning the SART exam (but no videotape); (4) spoken with Ritter on March 26, 2006 (after the verdict), and she had informed him that she was in possession of a videotape of Anna’s SART exam; and (5) subpoenaed and obtained the videotape of the SART exam after his conversation with Ritter. Defendant argued that the prosecution should have disclosed the video pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. 83.

The court denied the motion for new trial. It also denied a second new trial motion that had been filed by defendant on the basis that Anna had signed a declaration completely recanting her charges of molestation.

In August 2006, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 30 years to life.

HI. Prior Appeal

On April 24, 2008, we reversed the judgment on the basis that the nondisclosure of the SART video constituted a Brady violation that was prejudicial to defendant. We concluded that Valley Medical personnel who had performed the examination of Anna and created the undisclosed SART video were “part of the ‘prosecution team’ for Brady purposes. [Citation.] Their knowledge of the existence of the SART video was thus imputed to the prosecution.” (People v. Uribe, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 1481.) We held further that because “[t]he SART video was favorable to the defense” and “constituted suppressed evidence under Brady” and because “our confidence in the outcome of the trial [was] undermined by the suppression of this evidence by the prosecution” (id. at p. 1482), the Brady violation compelled reversal of the judgment. (Ibid.)

IV. Proceedings on Remand

A. Procedural History

In January 2009 (after the case was remanded), defendant filed a motion to dismiss the information on the basis of double jeopardy and prosecutorial misconduct. He alleged that the district attorney, Ritter, and Kerns were all aware of the existence of the videotape of Anna’s SART exam “and chose to withhold that evidence and make misrepresentations during [the] testimony [of Ritter and Kerns] to keep the SART video suppressed.” He contended further that “Dr. Kerns, in conspiracy with the prosecutor’s office, did not want defense attomey[s] to muddy up the waters with . . . SART video[s because] . . . they were concerned that . . . SART video [s] would give defendants evidence that would exonerate them.” Defendant argued that in light of the existence of the SART video, the trial testimony of Dr. Kerns—in which he strongly criticized Dr. Hariton’s opinions because he had relied on an allegedly unreliable photograph—was false. In a supplemental filing, defendant urged that the motion to dismiss should be granted based upon “outrageous prosecutorial misconduct at trial in violation of State and Federal Due Process.” Defendant argued that the prosecutor’s Brady error in failing to disclose the SART video that resulted in the reversal of the judgment of conviction here, “[ajlthough ... a gross disregard for Mr. Uribe’s due process rights, . . . [was] even more outrageous [in that the prosecutor and Dr. Kerns and Ritter] conspired to keep all SART videos suppressed between 1991 and 2006.” He concluded that this “ ‘institutional prosecutor[ial] misconduct’ ” was so severe that dismissal of the information was warranted.

In February 2009, defendant filed a motion to disqualify the district attorney on the basis of conflict of interest, pursuant to section 1424. He alleged that Ritter, Kerns, and the prosecutor’s office had “conspired to violate State law by not documenting SART exams on Office of Criminal Justice Planning 925 (Form 925)” for the purpose of concealing the fact that Valley Medical was videotaping SART exams of alleged sexual assault victims. He argued that the district attorney could “not prosecute [the] case fairly and even-handedly . . . [because] the prosecutor’s office [was] part of a conspiracy to withhold evidence from defendant.”

The People opposed the recusal motion and the motion to dismiss the information based on double jeopardy and outrageous prosecutorial misconduct.

The court conducted an evidentiary hearing over the course of 13 days spanning from March 2009 to January 2010. Substantial evidence was presented by the parties in six court sessions, which is described below. After submission of the bulk of the evidence, on October 7, 2009, the court denied the motion to disqualify the district attorney. In so ruling, the court found “that there was no evidence presented to suggest that either Doctor Kerns or Miss Ritter conspired with any current or former member of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office to conceal or withhold the subject [SART exam] videotapes from disclosure.” It found further “that there was no evidence presented to suggest that either the current or the former [district [attorney, [or] any member of either[’s] executive management staffs, had actual knowledge of the existence of any sexual assault examination videos prior to 2006.” The court accordingly concluded that defendant had failed to show “the existence of either a conspiracy or a conflict of interest that would render it unlikely that defendant would receive a fair retrial.”

After further briefing, argument, and submission of additional evidence, the court on January 6, 2010, denied the motion to dismiss based upon double jeopardy, and granted the motion to dismiss based upon prosecutorial misconduct in violation of due process. The court concluded in its formal order: “This Court is presently confronted with the rare and concerning case of egregious prosecutorial misconduct committed following reversal for a Brady violation. Mr. Benson’s numerous acts of misconduct, culminating in his false testimony in this proceeding, strikes at the foundation of our legal system and is so grossly shocking and outrageous that it offends the universal sense of justice to allow prosecution in this matter to proceed. As such, defendant’s motion to dismiss on due process grounds is granted.” (Original italics.)

The People filed a timely notice of appeal from the dismissal order. The appeal from the order is proper. (§ 1238, subd. (a)(8) [order or judgment dismissing or otherwise terminating all or portion of action appealable by People]; see also § 1238, subd. (a)(1) [People may appeal order setting aside all or part of indictment, information, or complaint]; Bellizzi v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 33, 37, fn. 3 [115 Cal.Rptr. 52, 524 P.2d 148] [People’s appeal from dismissal of information due to noncompliance with discovery order proper].)

B. Evidence Presented at Hearing

1. Overview

Much of the testimony concerned the Center’s practice of videotaping SART examinations; its use, documentation and retention of the videotapes; and any communications it had with the district attorney relating to the Center’s videotaping practices. This evidentiary focus was in keeping with the defense theory for the motions that there was a conspiracy between the Center (Dr. Kems and Ritter) and the district attorney to conceal the practice of videotaping SART examinations. The inquiry—analogous to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiry into the involvement of President Nixon in the Watergate scandal of the early 1970’s—was: What did the district attorney know about the Center’s videotaping of SART examinations and when did the district attorney know about the practice? The bulk of the evidence presented therefore through the testimony of 19 witnesses was related to the alleged awareness of district attorney personnel before March 2006 of the Center’s practice of videotaping SART examinations.

As noted, the court did not find the existence of a conspiracy between the Center and the district attorney to conceal the practice of videotaping SART examinations, and it did not find that “either the current or the former [district [attorney, [or] any member of either[’s] executive management staffs” knew about the Center’s practice of videotaping SART examinations prior to 2006. The court’s finding of prosecutorial misconduct was directed toward Benson alone, and the court made clear that this misconduct focused upon his having given false testimony during the hearing on the motions. Although the court did not specify the “numerous acts of misconduct” in its order or elaborate on its finding of the prosecutor’s untruthfulness, there were several areas in which Benson’s testimony was contradicted by others. These areas concerned (1) how Benson learned of the existence of a SART exam video in People v. Zeledon (Zeledon) (a case that he handled before the Uribe trial); (2) how and when he learned about the SART video in Uribe, and whether he informed his adversary, Lopez, about the video’s existence; (3) when he spoke with his supervisor and the head of the sexual assault unit, Victoria Brown, about having learned about the SART video in Uribe; and (4) whether he told Lopez after the Uribe appeal that he (Benson) was the one who allegedly first learned about the existence of the SART video.

As an aid to our discussion below of the testimony presented at the hearing, we present the following chronology;

July 29, 2005: Mary Ritter conducts SART exam of Anna.

January 12, 2006: Ritter provides Benson with video of SART exam of alleged victim in Zeledon.

February 1, 2006: Trial begins in Uribe.

March 3, 2006: Jury convicts defendant of four felonies.

March 22, 2006: Lopez learns from consultant that Anna’s SART exam may have been videotaped.

March 28, 2006: (Lopez testimony): Lopez speaks to Ritter and learns for first time that Anna’s SART exam was videotaped.

(Benson testimony): Benson speaks to Ritter about another case and she informs him that she videotaped Anna’s SART exam. Benson immediately speaks to Brown about the video, and calls Lopez afterwards to tell him about existence of video.

March 29, 2006: Lopez signs declaration in support of issuance of subpoena for video, referring to March 28 conversation with Ritter.

March 30, 2006: Defense motion for issuance of subpoena for video is filed and served on district attorney.

April 4, 2006: Brown sends e-mail to members in her sexual assault unit about disclosing SART videotapes to defense counsel.

(Brown testimony): Memo sent the day of, or the day after, she spoke with Benson.

(Benson testimony): Memo sent at least one week after he spoke to Brown.

April 7, 2006: Original date for sentencing in Uribe.

(Lopez testimony): Lopez informs court and Benson of discovery of SART video; Benson expresses surprise that Ritter had videotaped SART exams.

July 28, 2006: Court denies motion for new trial in Uribe.

February 7, 2008: (Benson testimony): Benson confirms with Lopez that Benson had first informed Lopez in March 2006 about existence of SART video.

(Lopez testimony): Benson, upset, approaches Lopez and asks him if he could provide Benson with a declaration. (No statement by Benson that he had first discovered the SART video.)

April 24, 2008: Court of Appeal reverses judgment of conviction in Uribe.

May 20, 2008: (Benson testimony): Lopez confirms in telephone conversation that Benson had informed Lopez about existence of SART video. (Conversation denied by Lopez.)

June 5, 2008: Lopez sends e-mail to Benson, indicating that Lopez was the person who first discovered that Ritter had videotaped the SART exam and had then informed Benson of the discovery.

2. Videotaping of SART examinations

The Center at Valley Medical began videotaping SART examinations in or about August 1991 and has done so continuously since that time. There are archived videotapes of approximately 3,300 SART exams. According to both Dr. Kerns and Ritter, the videotapes were not used as a part of the examination of the individual patients. Dr. Kerns testified that videotaping was done for “the primary reason [of providing] . . . live training during the exam.” The videos also served as a backup in the event the still photographs taken during a given examination were lost or damaged. In Dr. Kerns’s view, when there were still photographs available, “the video images were essentially worthless for the diagnostic process.” Ritter also testified that she had never used a video to assist her in reaching an opinion in a SART exam.

Dr. Kerns believed that, prior to the Uribe trial, there were one or two instances in which attorneys requested the videotape of a SART exam. Dr. Kerns and Ritter both testified that they made no attempts to conceal from anyone, including the defense bar, the fact that the Center was videotaping SART exams.

Ritter testified that there had been several occasions over the years in which attorneys from the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office had toured the Center’s facility. A VCR was plainly visible in the examination room from 1991 to 2006. It was not Ritter’s practice during tours to note the fact that exams were videotaped, and she did not recall having talked about videotaping during any of the tours. She did not recall that Benson ever took a tour of the facility, although they met once at her office to discuss a case. Nor did she recall having spoken with him about videotaping SART exams. Likewise, Ritter did not recall having discussed with Brown the fact that the Center was videotaping SART exams.

In February 2005, Deputy District Attorney Paul Colin, who had been assigned for that year to the sexual assault unit, took a tour of the Center. At some point, either Ritter or another Center employee pointed out the photographic equipment in the examination room and mentioned something about videotapes. He had the impression that videotaping may have occasionally occurred but that the videotapes were not saved. After the tour, Colin asked his supervisor, Brown, if she was “aware of any issue with videotaping.” Brown testified that she had no recollection of this conversation, and that she first became aware that Colin had previously known anything about videotaping when she saw his December 2008 memorandum on the subject.

It was stipulated by the parties that Dolores Carr would testify that she was elected district attorney in November 2006; took office in January 2007; was previously a deputy district attorney and was the supervisor of the sexual assault unit between 1998 and 2000; and first became aware that Valley Medical videotaped SART exams after having taken office in 2007. It was further stipulated that George Kennedy would testify that he was the elected district attorney from 1990 to 2006; was not aware that Valley Medical videotaped SART exams until after defendant was convicted in 2006; and was unaware of any attempts by any employee of his office to conceal Valley Medical’s videotaping of SART exams.

3. Knowledge of public defender of SART exam videotaping

The Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office retained the Honorable William F. Martin, Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court (retired), to investigate the extent to which the public defender’s and alternate public defender’s offices were aware before 2006 of the Center’s practice of videotaping SART exams. Judge Martin noted in his report that Javier Rios, a deputy public defender, had sent an e-mail to attorneys in both offices on March 13, 2001, in which he indicated that he had learned from another attorney that Ritter videotaped her SART exams. Judge Martin concluded that, notwithstanding this e-mail—which Rios himself did not recall—“there was no generalized knowledge [on the part of the members of either office] of the [Valley Medical] practice of videotaping SART exams until after the Uribe trial in early 2006.”

4. SART exam video in People v. Zeledon

Benson was assigned to the sexual assault unit of the district attorney’s office in or about August 2005; his previous assignment had been to the gang unit. After the transfer, he was assigned the Zeledon case. After receiving a copy of a letter from a defense expert, Dr. James Crawford, criticizing the quality of still photographs from the alleged victim’s SART exam, Benson met with Ritter at her office in January 2006. He testified that she told him at that time that her general practice was to videotape SART examinations and retain the videotapes until the still photographs were developed. On January 12, 2006, she provided Benson with a copy of a video of the SART exam of the alleged victim in Zeledon. Benson’s paralegal sent the video to Dr. Crawford a week later. Benson testified that sometime between January 19 and February 3, 2006, he ran into Richard Pointer, the attorney for the defendant in Zeledon, who asked Benson how long the Center had been videotaping SART exams; Benson replied that he did not know. Pointer testified that he did not recall such a conversation.

Pointer testified that he met with Ritter at the Center sometime before January 19, 2006 (i.e., the date the SART videotape was sent to Dr. Crawford). In the course of his asking about the equipment in the examination room, Ritter told Pointer that she videotaped each of the SART exams in addition to taking still photos. This was the first Pointer had heard about the videotaping of SART exams. Pointer asked her for a copy of the videotape for the Zeledon case, and Ritter responded that she was willing to produce it, but that Pointer should make a discovery request to the district attorney’s office. Thereafter, when Pointer spoke to Benson, he seemed surprised by Pointer’s comment that Ritter had said that she videotaped the SART exams. (Benson testified that Pointer was not the person who had first learned about the videotape. Nor was Pointer the one who had communicated this knowledge to Benson.) After the video was sent to Dr. Crawford and on February 3, 2006, Pointer wrote to Ritter, asking, among other things, when the practice of videotaping SART exams began.

5. Discovery of SART video after Uribe trial

Benson testified that on or about March 28, 2006 (25 days after the jury verdict in Uribe), he spoke with Ritter about another case. The conversation took place before the originally scheduled sentencing date in Uribe of April 7, 2006. Ritter asked why he had called Dr. Kerns as a rebuttal witness in the Uribe trial. Benson responded that the defense expert, Dr. Hariton, had testified that Ritter had somehow manipulated the patient during the exam to make it appear that her hymen had a Y-shaped notch consistent with a prior trauma. Ritter responded, “ ‘That’s ridiculous. I’ve got a video that would show that that didn’t happen.’ ” When Ritter said this, Benson did not react, but “was freaking out in [his] head, because [he] didn’t think that these videos were kept.” He was not concerned at the time that he had committed a Brady violation; rather, he was concerned that the video would end up bolstering the defense. Benson testified that this was when he had first learned there was a video of Anna’s SART exam. He admitted that he did not think to ask Ritter several weeks earlier—when he was preparing for trial in Uribe and after producing the SART video in Zeledon—if such a video existed.

Ritter testified that she did not recall having had a conversation with Benson about the SART video in this case.

Benson testified that immediately after his conversation with Ritter, he went to see his supervisor, Brown. He asked her if prosecutors were “ ‘supposed to be turning over these videos of the SART exams,’ ” and Brown responded, “ ‘What videos?’ ” After Benson explained that Ritter had told him that the Center had videotaped SART exams, Brown instructed Benson to call Lopez and the court to advise them of this discovery. Benson did not tell Brown that a video of the alleged victim’s SART exam in Zeledon had been produced to the defense expert in that case about a month before the Uribe trial.

Brown testified that her conversation with Benson occurred on April 3 or April 4, 2006, about a week later than when Benson testified that the conversation occurred. Brown was “stunned”; this was the first time she had heard that Ritter had videotaped SART exams. She did not recall whether Benson said that he was about to, or had already informed defense counsel about the existence of the SART video. Benson did not tell her that he had been involved in a prior case in which a SART video was provided to the defense.

Benson testified that, after speaking with Brown, he called Lopez, who “thanked [Benson] for disclosing this information to [him].” According to Benson, that day or the next day (i.e., Mar. 28 or 29), after he had spoken with Judge Bernal’s clerk, he and Lopez met with Judge Bernal, and it was agreed that because Lopez anticipated making a motion for new trial, he would subpoena the SART video.

Lopez’s testimony directly contradicted Benson regarding the circumstances of the discovery of the videotaping of Anna’s SART exam, their contacts with each other, and their communications with the trial judge on that discovery. Lopez testified that he, not Benson, discovered the videotape after speaking with Ritter. After the Uribe jury verdict, a colleague suggested Lopez contact another medical expert in the field of sexual assaults, Dr. Crawford. Lopez first spoke with Dr. Crawford on March 21 or 22, 2006. During their conversation, Dr. Crawford asked Lopez if his expert, Dr. Hariton, had viewed the videotape of the SART exam. Lopez was surprised by the comment because he had not previously heard that the exam had been videotaped. Lopez was “shocked” because he had submitted a pretrial informal discovery request to Benson and had caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served on Valley Medical; he therefore thought he had received all material concerning the SART exam.

According to his testimony, Lopez then contacted Ritter. After leaving several messages or trading phone calls, they spoke on March 28, 2006, and she confirmed that there was a video of the SART exam. He told her not to destroy the video and that he was going to subpoena it. Ritter confirmed in her testimony that she spoke with Lopez on the telephone sometime after the Uribe trial concerning the fact that she had videotaped SART exams. Lopez testified that he had no conversations with Benson about Uribe between the time he spoke with Dr. Crawford and when he spoke with Ritter about the existence of the video.

Lopez testified that on the same day after speaking with Ritter, he prepared a motion and subpoena* to require Ritter to produce the SART video. He signed a declaration in support of the subpoena on March 29, 2006, in which he stated that he was “informed and believe[d] based on [his] personal discussion with [Mary] Ritter on March 28, 2006, that Mrs. Ritter has possession of a video tape of the SART exam on the victim in this case.” The subpoena was served on Ritter on March 30, 2006, and the motion was filed that day and served on the district attorney’s office by leaving a copy with the clerk’s office.

Lopez believed that he called Benson sometime after the motion was filed and before April 7, 2006, but does not recall speaking with him. Lopez testified that the first time they spoke was immediately before meeting with Judge Bernal in chambers on April 7, 2006. During in-chambers discussions, Lopez advised that he had discovered the existence of the SART video from talking with Ritter. Benson said “he was shocked and surprised that Mary Ritter was videotaping.” Benson did not say when he had discovered the existence of a videotape.

Brown testified that she telephoned Ritter “almost immediately” after the conversation with Benson about the SART video in Uribe which she recalled having taken place on April 3 or April 4. Although Brown did not recall if she spoke to Ritter in that initial contact or left a message, she testified that they spoke within 24 hours of Brown’s conversation with Benson. Ritter told her that videotaping of the SART exams was done as a backup to the still photographs, but that the videos were “ ‘not forensically acceptable.’ ” Brown sent an e-mail on April 4, 2006, to members of her sexual assault unit. (Contrary to Brown’s testimony, Benson recalled that the e-mail had been sent at least a week after his conversation with Brown.) She composed it either while speaking with Ritter or immediately after hanging up the phone. She wrote: “Ritter videotapes child SART exams as back up to her photos .... The opinions [the Center] forms are based on the photos and not the video[s] due to the poor quality of the videos. However, if defense wants the documentation re the SART exam, the video is.part of that documentation.” Brown testified that “the whole purpose of [the e-mail was] not only to inform the team of the [SART videotapes’] existence, but to tell them they needed to make this part of the discovery process when we were the ones providing the documentation of the SART exam.”

6. Communications regarding SART video after Uribe appeal

Benson testified that he twice confirmed with Lopez in 2008 that it was Benson who had first informed Lopez in March 2006 about the existence of the SART video. The first such confirmation was on February 7, 2008, and Benson made a note of this conversation. Lopez’s testimony was contrary to Benson’s. Lopez testified that in or about February 2008, he ran into Benson in the hallway of the courthouse. Benson approached Lopez, appeared very upset, and asked Lopez, “ ‘Do you think you could write me a declaration?’ ” That was the end of the conversation. Although Benson did not mention Uribe, Lopez knew that Benson was referring to that case, because Benson had a newspaper article about the case in his hand when he approached him to ask his question.

Benson testified that on May 20, 2008, Lopez again confirmed by telephone that Benson had been the one to inform Lopez about the existence of the SART video; Lopez said that he would provide Benson with a declaration to that effect to submit to the State Bar. (As Benson explained in a May 2008 e-mail to Judge Bernal, copied to Lopez, due to the reversal of the Uribe judgment, he found himself “in the unique situation of having to self-report unethical conduct to the State Bar for discovering and disclosing evidence.”) After several e-mails from Benson seeking a declaration from Lopez, Lopez advised Benson on June 5, 2008, that a statement of facts that Benson had prepared was incorrect: it was Lopez’s recollection that he, not Benson, had first learned about the SART video in a conversation with Ritter after the jury trial and that Lopez then informed Benson of its existence. Lopez testified that he only became aware of Benson’s contention that he, not Lopez, had first learned about the SART video when he received Benson’s June 4, 2008 e-mail with a draft declaration for Lopez’s signature. Lopez sent the e-mail in response on June 5, 2008, because he was not going to sign a declaration that was false. In that e-mail, Lopez indicated that Benson’s proposed statement of facts was “not correct in this area: . . . after the [jury trial, Lopez] first learned of the video tape from speaking with Mary Ritter and [Lopez] notified [Benson] of that. . . .” Lopez sent a second e-mail to Benson to the same effect on June 23, 2008, and also indicated that he would be willing to sign a declaration indicating that he had no reason to suspect that Benson was aware of the existence of the SART video before or during the Uribe trial because Lopez then believed that Benson had first become aware of the video from talking with Lopez after the trial.

Benson also testified that he spoke with Judge Bernal by telephone in February 2008 “to make sure that [Benson’s] recollections [were] correct” as to which attorney had first learned about the existence of the SART video in Uribe. No one else participated in this ex parte communication. Benson wrote a memorandum indicating Judge Bernal’s recollection that Benson had been the one to learn of the existence of the SART video. This February 2008 telephone call between Benson and Judge Bernal was not corroborated by Judge Bernal’s testimony. Nor did Judge Bernal testify that he had known who had first learned about the SART video. Rather, Judge Bernal declared that he had no contact with either counsel concerning Uribe after the second motion for new trial was denied, except for being involved in a series of e-mail exchanges “relating to an attempt to fashion a settled statement of facts.” On May 20, 2008, Benson sent an e-mail to Judge Bernal in which he, among other things, requested that Judge Bernal supply him with a declaration “stating how the Court became aware of the [SART video] so that [Benson could] include it with [his] letter and declaration to the State Bar.” Judge Bernal responded that the canons of the California Code of Judicial Ethics precluded him from contacting the State Bar without either a request from that body or a subpoena. In June 2008—after receiving a copy of Lopez’s e-mail indicating that it was Lopez, not Benson, who had first become aware of the SART video—Judge Bernal sent an e-mail indicating he “was not at that end of what happened” and had only hearsay information from his clerk concerning the discovery of the SART video.

7. Prosecution of Uribe after remand

After remand and in June 2008, Deputy District Attorney Tim Mclnemy was assigned as trial attorney for the retrial of the Uribe case. Although Mclnemy was assigned to succeed Benson as trial attorney, the latter was responsible for filing motions in the case after remand, including a motion for discovery from defendant and a motion for the conditional examination of Anna’s mother.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

The standard for reviewing orders granting nonstatutory motions to dismiss is somewhat uncertain due to a dearth of California authority involving review of such orders. Defendant contends that our review of the court’s factual findings is governed by the substantial evidence standard, and that the dismissal order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The People disagree, arguing that the question presented here is a mixed question of fact and law and the order is, in part, subject to independent review.

Mixed questions of fact and law “are those ‘in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rale of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the [relevant legal] standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule- of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Louis (1986) 42 Cal.3d 969, 984 [232 Cal.Rptr. 110, 728 P.2d 180] (Louis), quoting Pullman-Standard v. Swint (1982) 456 U.S. 273, 289, fn. 19 [72 L.Ed.2d 66, 102 S.Ct. 1781].) The review of mixed questions thus involves a two-step process of first determining the facts relevant to the issue being decided and then applying the law to those established facts. (Louis, at pp. 984-985.) Deference is given to the trial court in considering the relevant factual findings; “ ‘[T]he power to judge the credibility of the witnesses, resolve any conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence and draw factual inferences, is vested in the trial court. On appeal all presumptions favor the exercise of that power, and the trial court’s findings on such matters, whether express or implied, must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597 [174 Cal.Rptr. 867, 629 P.2d 961] (Leyba), quoting People v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 160 [107 Cal.Rptr. 13, 507 P.2d 621]; see also People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 582 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454, 941 P.2d 87] [trial court’s “credibility determinations and findings on questions of historical fact” concerning juror misconduct upheld if based on substantial evidence].) In the second step—application of the law to the historical facts—the trial court’s decision is generally reviewed independently. (People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 900-901 [103 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 15 P.3d 243] (Cromer).)

Thus, for instance, in Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at page 893, after his conviction of three counts of armed robbery based upon the victim’s preliminary hearing testimony, the defendant successfully challenged the trial court’s determination that the prosecution had used reasonable diligence in attempting to secure the victim’s appearance at trial. The high court held that while the determination of the historical facts concerning the prosecution’s efforts to locate the witness were subject to a deferential review standard, “the second inquiry—whether these historical facts amount to due diligence by the prosecution—requires application of an objective, constitutionally based legal test to the historical facts. [Citation.] . . . ‘[T]he trial court’s superior capacity to resolve credibility issues is not dispositive .... [T]he crucial question entails an evaluation made after determination of [the historical] circumstances . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 900.) The court therefore concluded that appellate courts should independently review the determination of whether the prosecution’s efforts to secure the unavailable witness’s testimony were reasonable in the constitutional sense of justifying an exception to the constitutional right of confrontation guaranteed to the defendant. (Id. at p. 901; see also People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 303-304 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 493, 114 P.3d 742] [witness’s assertion of privilege against self-incrimination is mixed question subject to independent review, because issue implicates defendant’s constitutional confrontation right].)

The Supreme Court has explained that “California and federal cases have deemed the independent review standard appropriate for a diverse array of mixed law and fact questions, often on the ground, among others, that such questions were constitutionally significant and/or ‘predominantly legal.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1264-1265, fn. 8 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 302, 95 P.3d 523] (Ault).) For example, the reasonableness of an investigatory stop is a mixed question in which the trial court’s determination of the relevant facts is subject to deferential review, but the application of the constitutional standard of reasonableness to those facts is reviewed independently. (Leyba, supra, 29 Cal.3d at pp. 596-597; see also People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 182-184 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365] [reasonableness of search following vehicle stop at highway checkpoint for routine inspection of license and registration is mixed question; application of law to established facts reviewed independently].) Similarly, where a statement made to police is challenged by a motion to suppress as violating the defendant’s Miranda rights, the court’s relevant factual findings concerning the circumstances surrounding the statement are reviewed for substantial evidence, but the court’s “measurement of the facts against the law” is subject to independent review. (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 730 [94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46]; see also People v. Kennedy (2005) 36 Cal.4th 595, 608-609 [31 Cal.Rptr.3d 160, 115 P.3d 472], disapproved on another ground in People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 459 [111 Cal.Rptr.3d 589, 233 P.3d 1000] [ruling that identification procedure was not unduly suggestive is subject to independent review, because it implicates constitutional rights and is a mixed question of fact and law].)

We recognize that it is not universally true that the second step is subject to independent review in a mixed question case. (See Ault, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1255 [mixed question of whether juror misconduct was so prejudicial as to warrant new trial order reviewed for abuse of discretion; question of prejudice not subject to independent review].) But whether an independent or more deferential review standard is applied “is influenced in part by the importance of the legal rights or interests at stake. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1265, original italics; see Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 901 [holding that independent review standard applied to trial court’s conclusion that prosecution used due diligence to locate missing witness “comports with this court’s usual practice for review of mixed question determinations affecting constitutional rights”].) Further, “independent appellate review of a mixed law and fact question is crucial when an excessively deferential appellate affirmance risks error in the final determination of a party’s rights, either as to the entire case, or on a significant issue in the litigation.” (Ault, at p. 1266, original italics.)

The determination of whether the government engaged in outrageous conduct in violation of defendant’s due process rights is a mixed question. The first step involves the consideration and weighing of the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses to determine factually whether, and to what extent, governmental misconduct occurred. This factual determination is clearly one that is subject to a deferential standard of review. But the second step—whether the governmental conduct constitutes outrageous conduct in the constitutional sense of violating defendant’s due process rights— involves the application of law to the established facts and is primarily a legal question. The rights of the respective parties here are extremely important ones, namely, defendant’s right to a fair trial and the People’s right to prosecute persons believed to be responsible for the commission of serious crimes. And the order of dismissal with prejudice we review is one that results in the final determination of the parties’ rights. We hold therefore that the trial court’s finding that the governmental conduct was outrageous in violation of defendant’s due process rights thereby warranting dismissal is subject to independent review. (See People v. Tatum (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 41, 60, fn. 6 [73 Cal.Rptr.3d 718], disapproved on another ground in People v. Lara (2010) 48 Cal.4th 216, 236, fn. 26 [106 Cal.Rptr.3d 208, 226 P.3d 322] [dismissal of untimely petition for involuntary commitment as a mentally disordered offender subject to independent review, because untimely petition and any prejudice therefrom implicates defendant’s due process rights].)

Although we conclude otherwise, we recognize that there is some support for defendant’s advocacy of an abuse of discretion standard here. (See People v. Conrad (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1186 [52 Cal.Rptr.3d 233] [order dismissing action for delay in prosecution resulting in loss of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion]; Boulas v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 422, 435 [233 Cal.Rptr. 487] (Boulas) [“ ‘sanction of dismissal is clearly discretionary . ..’ ”]; cf. People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 375 [14 Cal.Rptr.3d 880, 92 P.3d 369] [ruling on request for dismissal in the interests of justice under § 1385 is reviewed for abuse of discretion].) “The abuse of discretion standard is ‘deferential,’ but it ‘is not empty.’ [Citation.] ‘[I]t asks in substance whether the ruling in question “falls outside the bounds of reason” under the applicable law and the relevant facts [citations].’ [Citation.]” (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 663 [68 Cal.Rptr.3d 51, 170 P.3d 623].) “ ‘Discretion is compatible only with decisions “controlled by sound principles of law . . . .” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘[A]ll exercises of legal discretion must be grounded in reasoned judgment and guided by legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular matter at issue.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 928 P.2d 1171].) Thus, the trial court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision “on impermissible factors [citation] or on an incorrect legal standard [citations].” (People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156 [59 Cal.Rptr.3d 157, 158 P.3d 731] [exercise of discretion in granting new trial].)

Here, as discussed below, based upon our independent review, the sanction of dismissal for the outrageous governmental conduct—found to have occurred by the trial court—was unwarranted under established law. But even were we to apply the more deferential abuse of discretion standard, our conclusion would be the same. In apparently neglecting to consider whether, and to what extent, the prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced defendant’s substantial rights, the court based its dismissal order on an incorrect legal standard and hence abused its discretion.

II. Finding of Prosecutorial Misconduct

As noted above, in this mixed question case, the trial court’s finding of prosecutorial misconduct was based upon its consideration of the evidence and is subject to deferential review. (Leyba, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 596.) The trial court determined that Benson had attempted to obtain false declarations from Judge Bernal and Lopez, had misled Judge Bernal, and had testified falsely at the hearing on the motions. These factual findings were based upon the evidence presented at the extensive hearings and were in large part made from the court’s assessment of the relative credibility of Lopez and Benson.

The court’s finding that Benson engaged in substantial misconduct, including untruthful testimony at the hearing on the motions, is supported by substantial evidence. Although not spelled out in the court’s order, the court could have found Benson’s testimony to have been untruthful in at least three areas. First, the issue of when and how he learned of the video of the alleged victim’s SART exam in Zeledon was contradicted by Defense Attorney Pointer’s testimony. Second, Benson’s testimony concerning when and how he learned about Anna’s SART exam video was extensively contradicted by Lopez. Lopez testified that he first discovered from Ritter that she had videotaped Anna’s SART exam, and he denied that he had learned about the video from Benson. The declaration Lopez signed March 29, 2006, in support of the motion to compel production of the SART video was consistent with his testimony. Ritter did not recall talking to Benson about Anna’s SART video. And Benson’s testimony was at odds with that of his supervisor, Brown, to the extent she placed her conversation with Benson at least six days after the date Benson said it occurred, and thus, significantly, at least four days after Lopez’s motion—wherein he declared that he had learned about the video from Ritter on March 28—was served on the district attorney. Third, Benson’s testimony about conversations he had had with Lopez in February and May 2008 and with Judge Bernal in February 2008 was contradicted by Lopez and Judge Bernal, respectively.

There was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding of “egregious prosecutorial misconduct committed following reversal for a Brady violation.” (Original italics.) It remains for us to review independently whether, applying the law to these established facts, the misconduct constituted outrageous governmental conduct in violation of defendant’s due process rights which justified dismissal of the information.

III. Propriety of Order of Dismissal for Outrageous Conduct

A. Introduction

At the heart of the People’s position is that dismissal was an unwarranted sanction for Benson’s misconduct because “the evidence presented at the hearing show[ed] neither actual prejudice to defendant’s fair trial right, nor a substantial likelihood of an unfair trial . . . .” The People argue that the central inquiry of a due process claim based upon prosecutorial misconduct is the fairness of the trial, not the blameworthiness of the misconduct. Accordingly, they assert that since there was neither a showing nor a court finding that Benson’s misconduct had an impact on defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial, dismissal was improper.

Defendant responds that “[t]he determinative issue” here “is whether the governmental acts are sufficiently outrageous to satisfy the ‘shock the conscience’ standard . . . [and] determination of prejudice to the defendant’s right to a fair trial is not a factor in the court’s decision.” He argues that under Rochin v. California (1952) 342 U.S. 165 [96 L.Ed. 183, 72 S.Ct. 205] (Rochin), the order of dismissal was proper because the prosecutorial misconduct shocked the conscience and thereby constituted a violation of substantive due process. Defendant argues further that the authorities relied on by the People are inapposite because they were not cases involving Rochin substantive due process claims.

There is apparently no authority addressing the issue before us: Whether the trial court, in addressing prosecutorial misconduct primarily consisting of the giving of false testimony at a pretrial hearing, may impose the sanction of dismissal with prejudice, where the misconduct did not have a material adverse impact on defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial. Neither party has cited any case, either from California or from another jurisdiction, in which the court considered the propriety of imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal to address prosecutorial misconduct of this nature. Indeed, the court itself acknowledged the absence of apposite authority.

We address below defendant’s claim that the dismissal order was justified based upon a substantive due process claim, and we reject that position. We conclude further that the three California cases upon which defendant relies in which there was a dismissal order based upon a finding of outrageous governmental conduct are distinguishable and do not support the court’s order. From a review of the relevant cases, we find that a showing of prejudice to defendant’s right to a fair trial was required and that the absence of such a showing precluded dismissal as a sanction for prosecutorial misconduct. We also conclude that the federal cases from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressing outrageous governmental conduct in violation of due process—relied on by the trial court—do not support the dismissal order. Lastly, we hold that the dismissal of the information here was not appropriate as an exercise of the court’s inherent supervisory powers. Neither the Ninth Circuit cases cited by the trial court nor the California decision cited by defendant supports the court’s dismissal of the information under its authority to supervise judicial proceedings.

B. Substantive Due Process Claim Under Rochin v. California

1. Rochin v. California

In Rochin, supra, 342 U.S. at page 166, government agents, investigating suspected narcotics sales, entered the defendant’s home without a warrant, forced open the door to a room on the second floor, witnessed the defendant swallowing capsules next to his bed, and arrested him. The agents took the defendant to the hospital and directed doctors to pump his stomach, resulting in the production of two capsules containing morphine. (Ibid.) The United States Supreme Court reviewed the defendant’s conviction based upon a federal due process claim, observing that “[r]egard for the requirements of the Due Process Clause ‘inescapably imposes upon this Court an exercise of judgment upon the whole course of the proceedings [resulting in a conviction] in order to ascertain whether they offend those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples even toward those charged with the most heinous offenses.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 169.) It “conclude[d] that the proceedings by which this conviction was obtained do more than offend some fastidious squeamishness or private sentimentalism about combatting crime too energetically. This is conduct that shocks the conscience. . . . [The conduct involves] methods too close to the rack and the screw to permit of constitutional differentiation.” (Id. at p. 172.) The court therefore held that the conviction obtained by such “brutal and . . . offensive” means violated the federal due process clause. (Id. at p. 174.)

Subsequent decisions of the high court emphasize that extreme governmental conduct is required under Rochin to satisfy the “shock the conscience” standard for a violation of substantive due process. (See, e.g., United States v. Salerno (1987) 481 U.S. 739, 746 [95 L.Ed.2d 697, 107 S.Ct. 2095] [substantive due process prevents governmental behavior that is conscience-shocking or interferes with rights implicit in concept of ordered liberty]; Breithaupt v. Abram (1957) 352 U.S. 432, 435 [1 L.Ed.2d 44, 77 S.Ct. 4088] [conduct must be “so ‘brutal’ and ‘offensive’ that it did not comport with traditional ideas of fair play and decency”].) Rochin’s “shock the conscience” substantive due process standard has been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court as potentially available to civil litigants claiming that police misconduct constituted a violation of their civil rights under section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code. (See Chavez v. Martinez (2003) 538 U.S. 760, 774 [155 L.Ed.2d 984, 123 S.Ct. 1994]; County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1998) 523 U.S. 833, 850 [140 L.Ed.2d 1043, 18 S.Ct. 1708] (Lewis).) Numerous cases have cited Rochin in that context, and federal circuit courts of appeals have recognized that governmental misconduct that shocks the conscience may serve as a basis for a section 1983 federal civil rights action. (See, e.g., Stoot v. City of Everett (9th Cir. 2009) 582 F.3d 910, 928; Neal ex rel. Neal v. Fulton County Bd. of Education (11th Cir. 2000) 229 F.3d 1069, 1075; Morris v. Dearborne (5th Cir. 1999) 181 F.3d 657, 668; Haberthur v. City of Raymore, Missouri (8th Cir. 1997) 119 F.3d 720, 723-724; Johnson v. Glick (2d Cir. 1973) 481 F.2d 1028, 1033.)

2. Substantive due process generally

The substantive component of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “bar[s] certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them, e.g., Rochin, supra, [342 U.S. 165, and] serves to prevent governmental power from being ‘used for purposes of oppression,’ [citation].” (Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327, 331-332 [88 L.Ed.2d 662, 106 S.Ct. 662].) Substantive due process has “[historically . . . been applied to deliberate decisions of government officials to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property” (id. at p. 331), and to prevent “government power arbitrarily and oppressively exercised” (Lewis, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 846). “The protections of substantive due process have for the most part been accorded to matters relating to marriage, family, procreation, and the right to bodily integrity. [Citation.]” (Albright v. Oliver (1994) 510 U.S. 266, 272 [127 L.Ed.2d 114, 114 S.Ct. 807].)

“[T]he [Supreme] Court has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended. [Citation.] The doctrine of judicial self-restraint requires us to exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field.” (Collins v. Harker Heights (1992) 503 U.S. 115, 125 [117 L.Ed.2d 261, 112 S.Ct. 1061] (Collins).) In light of this policy, “[w]here a particular Amendment ‘provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection’ against a particular sort of government behavior, ‘that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of “substantive due process,” must be the guide for analyzing these claims.’ (Graham v. Connor [(1989) 490 U.S. 386,] 395 [104 L.Ed.2d 443, 109 S.Ct. 1865].)” (Albright v. Oliver, supra, 510 U.S. at p. 273, fn. omitted; see also Lewis, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 842.)

The high court has explained that “substantive-due-process analysis has two primary features: First, we have regularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ [citations], and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed,’ [citation]. Second, we have required in substantive-due-process cases a ‘careful description’ of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. [Citations.]” (Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) 521 U.S. 702, 720-721 [138 L.Ed.2d 772, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 117 S.Ct. 2302] (Glucksberg).)

3. Analysis of substantive due process argument

Commencing here with the second feature of substantive due process enunciated by the high court, it is difficult to provide “a ‘careful description’ of the asserted fundamental liberty interest” (Glucksberg, supra, 521 U.S. at p. 721) that the court, through its dismissal order, sought to address here. Defendant does not plainly identify that interest. Indeed, it is unclear that he even asserted a claim of substantive due process below. Defendant initially contended in his February 2009 motion papers that he was denied due process by the prosecutor’s deliberate violation of Brady in suppressing the SART video prior to and throughout the trial and by conspiring with Dr. Kerns and Ritter to suppress that discovery. In subsequent moving papers filed in October 2009, defendant argued that Benson’s outrageous conduct, in addition to his alleged suppr