**UPDATED BASED ON COMMENTS** The public must be provided a reasonable access to all records public. Does the sealed documentation need to be unsealed even if only the defendant wants to inspect or obtain copies of any such records? And if so, why? Presume Bob is accused maliciously of a crime abetted by the police, and video records _may_ have corroborating or direct evidence of this that it recorded on its AXON. The AXON video is reported to have been created by the police and the DA received it. The DA provided all evidence to the defense except that audio-and-video recording or conspired the defense team to not play the audio to Bob and act like they don’t think there is anything that would really need to hear the audio, too. Appointed counsel denies requesting the DA to hand over that specific AXON evidence including the audio despite the written request of Bob that the appointed counsel acknowledged in writing and generally denied. Bob clearly is unable to build an affirmative defense based on the otherwise well-corroborated conspiracy because app. counsel denies to obtain and/or present let alone provide a copy of the AXON (redacted per Pen. Code or otherwise). It is extremely adverse to the interest of the conspirators to destroy the evidence due to the fact that the police report on the AXON was submitted and a version was presented to Bob by the defense team without audio who claimed that their computer was unable to play audio. The fact that there must be at least one copy at each agency, both going missing while no other evidence would go missing would raise such suspicion that could immediately land the case in the hands of the media. For over 2 years, the defense team consistently denied to allow Bob to hear the audio of the specific AXON evidence or provide him with a copy of either the video or audio only recording of the AXON, or both. The record now shows that Bob was presented the AXON, and the defense team is off the hook. It is only in the possession of the DA and the police. Destroying the evidence will make it much more obvious than keeping Bob silent having an appointed counsel who will simply be able to assert he didn’t believe the evidence pertinent to the case than explaining why only that piece went missing should the DA asserted that. It is only in the possession of the DA and the police. Destroying the evidence will make it much more obvious than keeping Bob silent having an appointed counsel who will simply be able to assert he didn’t believe the evidence pertinent to the case than explaining why only that piece went missing should the DA asserted that. ---------- **Does Bob, for example due to a fair trial, to a just outcome, to effective assistance of counsel, to the right to raise concerns about the effective assistance of counsel under a Marsden motion or based on any other well-established case law or legal theory on statute, the constitution or any treaty, have a right to be presented such evidence or obtain a copy before a pre-trial conference?**