Can a defendant compel production of statements made to police by certain witnesses at trial?

In People v. Riser (1956), 47 Cal.2d 566, 305 P.2d 1, defendant, accused of two homicides, moved before trial for an order directing the prosecution to allow him to inspect statements made to police by certain witnesses immediately after the homicides. The motion was denied. During the trial defendant caused a subpoena duces tecum to issue commanding production of the originals of the same statements, one of which had already been referred to by a witness on cross-examination; on motion of the prosecution the subpoena was vacated on the ground that the statements were inadmissible as evidence. On appeal this court, holding (47 Cal.2d 566, 305 P.2d 15) that the trial court's view as to admissibility of the statements was without support and that it was error to vacate the subpoena, stated that (47 Cal.2d 585, 305 P.2d 12-13), 'Originally at common law the accused in a criminal action could not compel production of documents or other evidence in the possession of the prosecution. (Citation.) Production was denied before trial on the ground that to compel the prosecution to reveal its evidence beforehand would enable the defendant to secure perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to meet the state's case. It was felt, furthermore, that to allow the defendant to compel production when the prosecution could not in its turn compel production from the defendant because of the privilege against self incrimination would unduly shift to the defendant's side a balance of advantages already heavily weighted in his favor.' (Citations.)