Interesting article on reasons why Jose would file for an ex parte with the judge:
http://www.mcacp.org/issue56.htm
Severance
Where a defendant seeks to sever the counts of an indictment, the defense must show both an important testimony to give about one count and a genuine need to refrain from testifying about another. This is to be determined in an ex parte, in camera hearing. CPL 200.20(3)(b)(ii).
Investigative services
Where defense counsel seeks county payment for investigative or expert services, County Law § 722-c provides for the application to be made ex parte.
Attorney work product
A prosecution claim of attorney work product may require in camera inspection to determine if the statement is Brady or Rosario material. People v Dockery, 278 AD2d 427, 717 NYS2d 657 (2d Dept 2000).
Grand jury minutes
Where the defense requests inspection of grand jury minutes, the judge must review these in camera. The court may release grand jury minutes, but the prosecution must be given an opportunity beforehand to argue that release of the minutes would not be in the public interest. CPL 210.30(3).
Discovery
With contested discovery, the court may review ex parte or in camera, and grant a protective order. CPL 240.90(3); People v Mobley, 162 AD2d 305, 558 NYS2d 1 (1st Dept 1990); People v Ellis, 188 AD2d 1043, 592 NYS2d 200 (4th Dept 1992); Handling § 8:114.
Police employment records are entitled to confidentiality and should be first reviewed in camera prior to any disclosure. Handling § 18:436.
Mental health and other private records may require in camera review before being turned over to counsel. People v Arnold, 177 AD2d 633, 576 NYS2d 339 (2d Dept 1991); Handling §§ 8:84, 8:164.
Where a social services agency had investigated a sexual abuse allegation, the defendant had a due process right to have the records reviewed in camera. Pennsylvania v Ritchie, 480 US 39 (1987). Ex parte or in camera review may be appropriate with some discovery, but it should be the exception rather than the rule. With Rosario material, for example, the Court of Appeals noted that " . . . omissions, contrasts and even contradictions, vital perhaps, for discrediting a witness, are certainly not as apparent to the impartial presiding judge as to single-minded counsel for the accused; the latter is in a far better position to appraise the value of a witness' pretrial statements for impeachment purposes." People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 290, 213 NYS2d 448 (1961); see also, People v Bugayong, 182 AD2d 450, 582 NY2d 175 (1st Dept 1992).
