The case of Jesse James Hollywood (really) involved the murder of Nick Markowitz. According the court's statement of facts, Hollywood is accused of ordering the kidnapping and eventual murder of Nick in order to extort repayment from Nick's older half-brother Ben. After Nick was killed, Hollywood became a fugitive and fled to Brazil.

The prosecutor obtained convictions of Hollywood's accomplices to the murder, but Hollywood remained at large. Apparently in an effort to track down Hollywood, the prosecutor turned over materials to a movie director who was making a film about Nick's murder. When Hollywood was captured in Brazil, his attorney's made a motion to recuse the prosecutor and the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office because of "conflict of interest."

A trial court found the prosecutor had not acted improperly and Hollywood appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held it would be improper to allow the prosecutor to continue, but did not recuse the rest of the District Attorney's Office.

On review, the California Supreme Court held the standard for recusal -- no recusal unless the evidence shows a conflict of interest prevents a fair trial -- had been properly applied by the trial court, and incorrectly used by the Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court held that the potential imposition of a death sentence did not change the standard for recusal. The decision stressed that while recusal can be a sanction for prosecutorial misconduct, it is not meant to be a disciplinary hearing against the prosecutor. Therefore, not all cases of prosecutorial misconduct require recusal.

In Haraguchi, the lead prosecutor moonlighted as a novelist and on the eve of trial published a novel involving facts eerily similar to those of Haraguchi's case. Haraguchi was being tried for the rape of an intoxicated person around the same time the prosecutor had published her novel, Intoxicating Agent, about a prosecutor's decision whether to try a rape case involving an intoxicated victim. The trial court found recusal was not warranted because there was no evidence of conflict. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding recusal was required as a matter of law because the prosecutor's views of the justice system "as reflected in the novel, were so one-sided as to raise a reasonable possibility she would not exercise her discretion evenhandedly".

The California Supreme Court reversed based on the Court of Appeal's failure to grant appropriate deference to the trial court's conclusion that Haraguchi had not proven he was likely to receive an unfair trial as no disqualifying conflict of interest existed.

The California Supreme Court's decisions in both Hollywood and Haraguchi establish that Section 1424 offers no relief to defendants for prosecutorial actions that simply appear improper. There must be evidence that the defendant will not receive a fair trial.