SANTA CLARA v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA Part-III
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>SANTA CLARA v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >SANTA CLARA</b><b<br /> > v. SUPERIOR<br /> COURT OF SANTA</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/26/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >IN THE SUPREME COURT OF </b><b<br /> >CALIFORNIA</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al., )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> Petitioners, )<br /> <br/> ) S163681<br /> <br/> v. )<br /> <br/> ) Ct.App. 6<br /> <br/>THE<br /> SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA ) No. H031540<br /> <br/>CLARA COUNTY, )<br /> <br/> ) Santa Clara County<br /> <br/> Respondent; ) Super. Ct. No. CV 788657<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/>ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY )<br /> <br/>et al., )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> Real Parties in Interest. )<br /> <br/>__________________________ )<u></u><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM <br /> PART II….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>As we have explained above, in the type of<br /> public-nuisance abatement action being prosecuted in the present case,<br /> disqualification of counsel need not be governed by the stringent<br /> disqualification rules applicable to criminal prosecutors. Nevertheless, the role of the prosecutor<br /> provides useful guidance concerning the type of discretionary decisions that<br /> must remain with neutral government attorneys to ensure that the litigation is<br /> conducted in a conflict-free manner. A<br /> public prosecutor â€