Is there any case law that supports a defendant's argument that a district attorney does not act judicially when charging with murder?

California case law negates defendant's contention. In People v. Bird (1931) 212 Cal. 632, 300 P. 23, the facts were similar to the facts here. By an original complaint filed in the municipal court defendant was charged with murder. The magistrate held him to answer only for manslaughter. [6 Cal.App.3d 734] An original information charging manslaughter was filed. Thereafter a new complaint was filed charging murder. Again the magistrate held defendant to answer for manslaughter and again the information filed charged murder. Defendant was convicted of manslaughter. On appeal it was held that section 8 of article I of the Constitution had not been violated. The court stated on page 641, 300 P. on page 27: 'The information, like an indictment, is merely an accusatory paper and is to be considered as no more than a part of the method of putting the defendant on trial for the charge named therein. * * *' Other rules can be taken from Bird: that the challenged code section (then numbered 809, now 739 of the Pen.Code) does not violate due process (Lem Woon v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 586, 33 S.Ct. 783, 57 L.Ed. 1340); that a district attorney in filing an information does not act judicially. ²