Tag Archives: Trial

Proceedings

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Proceedings in California

Transnational Proceedings

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the transnational proceedings laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of transnational proceedings in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with transnational proceedings. This introductory section covers case law related to transnational proceedings in California, the legal approach on transnational proceedings in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of transnational proceedings in California.

Transnational Proceedings in relation to Bankruptcy Law

This section analizes the legal issue of transnational proceedings in this context.

Pretrial Proceedings and Preliminary Matters

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the pretrial proceedings and preliminary matters laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of pretrial proceedings and preliminary matters in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with pretrial proceedings and preliminary matters. This introductory section covers case law related to pretrial proceedings and preliminary matters in California, the legal approach on pretrial proceedings and preliminary matters in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of pretrial proceedings and preliminary matters in California.

Pretrial Proceedings and Preliminary Matters in relation to Criminal Law & Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of pretrial proceedings and preliminary matters in this context, and provides information on its relation with Pretrial Proceedings and Preliminary Matters.

Proceedings

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the proceedings laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of proceedings in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with proceedings. This introductory section covers case law related to proceedings in California, the legal approach on proceedings in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of proceedings in California.

Proceedings in relation to Probate, Estates and Trusts

This section analizes the legal issue of proceedings in this context, and provides information on its relation with Administration of Estates.

Declaratory Judgments and Related Proceedings in California: General Overview

This entry offers readers with practical insight to the subject of declaratory judgments and related proceedings in California, a general introduction to the legal issues relating to declaratory judgments and related proceedings under California law and practice.

Resources

See Also

Resources

See Also

Resources

See Also

Supreme Court

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court Activity in 2013-2014

From July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014 – with Justice Joyce L. Kennard absent during the final three months – the California Supreme Court decided 89 cases, matching the previous year’s output with a balanced caseload of 32 civil cases, 26 death penalty cases, 28 non-death criminal cases, and three State Bar matters. All of the death penalty cases were affirmed, and all but two of those decisions were unanimous. Most of the non-death criminal rulings were also unanimous, with one 43 split and three solo dissents (two from Kennard and one from Justice Marvin R. Baxter).

In the civil cases, the Court split 43 three times, 52 five times, and 61 twice. Thus, the overall dissent rate for the year was a paltry 4.5 percent, falling between the record low of 2.3 percent set during the first year of the Cantil-Sakauye Court and 6.1 percent achieved in 2013.

The California Supreme Court Activity in 2012-2013

By Gerald F. Uelmen, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. Earl Horner (Class of 2014) compiled the data for this article.

In sharp contrast to the first year of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s leadership of the California Supreme Court, her second year saw dissent and disagreement rates sharply increase, with some unusual combinations in both the majority and dissenting opinions. From July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013, the court split 4-3 in seven cases, compared with only one in the previous twelve months. (See “Justices United,” September 2012.) There were also seven 5-2 opinions, compared with one the previous year. As a result, the overall dissent rate nearly tripled – from 2.3 percent to 6.1 percent.

Justices Joyce Kennard and Goodwin Liu tied for the highest dissent rate (15.5 percent), but they weren’t always dissenting in the same cases. And even when they were, they rarely joined each other’s opinions.

When the court split 4-3, I found the alignments to be especially intriguing, with a different lineup in each case. (See “Close Calls” below.) Five of the seven were criminal cases. The defense lost in four of those five. Although few consistent patterns emerged, I did note that Liu was with the defense in all five cases, joined by Justice Kathryn Werdegar in four. Justice Marvin Baxter, on the other hand, was with the prosecution in four of the five cases. In the one case in which he sided with the defense, Baxter wrote an unusual (for him) concurring opinion, offering a Scalia-like explanation that the result was compelled by the plain language of the statute, without looking beyond the text. (People v. Rodriguez, 55 Cal. 4th 1125, 1139-1141 (2012) (Baxter, J., concurring).)

Disagreement Rates

Rates of disagreement measure the proportion of cases in which the justices vote on opposite sides of cases that divide the court. The lowest rate of disagreement is that between Baxter and Justice Ming Chin, who were on the same side in 98 percent of the cases. The highest rates of disagreement were registered by Liu and Baxter, who were on opposite sides in 15 percent of the cases. (Kennard and Liu cast different votes 13.3 percent of the time.)
To me, the biggest surprise was Liu’s rate of agreement with Justice Carol Corrigan. They voted together in 94 percent of the cases – an “odd couple” – in which one of the more conservative justices (Corrigan) joined one of the more liberal (Liu). The explanation for this may be that they actually talk to each other outside the conferences!

In a pair of interesting cases, Liu joined Corrigan’s dissenting opinions: In re Boyette (56 Cal. 4th 866 (2013)), in which she argued that jurors watching a film about prison life during their deliberations was misconduct requiring reversal; and People v. Dungo (55 Cal. 4th 608 (2012)), one of the Confrontation Clause cases discussed on the opposite page. Liu also had a 94 percent rate of agreement with Werdegar.

Like her predecessor, Chief Justice Ronald George, Chief Cantil-Sakauye staked out a very centrist position, tilting slightly to the right. She parted company with Chin in 5 percent of the cases, and with Liu in 10 percent. Liu’s tilt to the left was very similar to that of his predecessor, Justice Carlos Moreno: Liu disagreed with both the chief and Chin in 10 percent of the cases.

When the cases are broken down into separate categories – civil cases, death penalty cases, and noncapital criminal cases – the dissent and disagreement rates look very different. Of the 96 cases decided this year, 32 were civil cases, 21 were death penalty cases, and 43 were noncapital criminal cases. The dissent rate for civil cases was 5.1 percent. Although three of the death cases were reversals, only two of the affirmances drew dissents, for an overall dissent rate of 2.8 percent. For non-death criminal cases, however, the dissent rate was 7.9 percent.

Confrontation Confusion

What happens when the U.S. Supreme Court fails to muster a majority to agree on the same rationale for its decision? Last term the high court did just that, fumbling the ball in its decision in Williams v. Illinois (132 S. Ct. 1221 (2012)). In upholding the admission of the results of a laboratory DNA analysis without cross-examination of the analyst who prepared it, four justices joined a plurality opinion that watered down the Confrontation Clause analysis of Crawford v. Washington (541 U.S. 36 (2004)), while four justices, including Crawford author Justice Antonin Scalia, insisted that Crawford required reversal. The concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas, which relied upon a totally different rationale, arguing that Confrontation Clause protection applies only to statements “with the solemnity of an affidavit or deposition,” provided the fifth vote needed to decide the case. But the decision’s split rationales left the fate of Crawford’s approach to the Confrontation Clause in limbo.

In California, the state Supreme Court struggled with the impact of Williams upon the admissibility of various forensic reports in a trilogy of cases. Not surprisingly, the cases resulted in a bewildering array of opinions, as the justices attempted to pick through the high court’s tea leaves. All three of the cases produced majority opinions upholding the convictions, and all were authored by Justice Kennard.

In People v. Lopez (55 Cal. 4th 569 (2012) (blood-alcohol concentration test results)), the state Supreme Court concluded that a laboratory technician’s initials on a report “were not made with the requisite degree of formality or solemnity” to be considered testimonial. Justice Liu dissented.

The conclusion in People v. Dungo (55 Cal. 4th 608 (2012) (observations during autopsy)) was that a physician’s description in a report of what he observed during an autopsy was not testimonial, because a criminal investigation was not the primary purpose of the autopsy, but rather only one of several purposes. Justices Corrigan and Liu dissented.

In People v. Rutterschmidt (55 Cal. 4th 650 (2012) (toxicology analysis)), Justice Kennard threw up her hands and declared that even if an analyst’s report was testimonial, its admission was harmless error. Just like Williams, none of these cases will provide much guidance to trial courts in determining whether out-of-court statements were testimonial. But one can hardly blame the California Supreme Court: It was simply following the bad example of the highest court in the land.

The Best and the Worst

Although I didn’t like the result in the closely watched case of City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (56 Cal. 4th 729 (2013)), I must compliment Justice Baxter on a masterful job of laying out the issues and resolving them concisely: State medical-marijuana laws do not preempt local regulation. Therefore, local governments remain free to prohibit the operation of marijuana dispensaries within their jurisdiction, even when such operations are in full compliance with state law. Unfortunately, this encourages a not-in-my-backyard mentality that will likely drive distribution underground, as well as require many patients to travel long distances to get safe access to medical marijuana. But as Justice Baxter notes, “[N]othing prevents future efforts by the Legislature, or by the People, to adopt a different approach.”

A different approach indeed was used in the recent initiative measures legalizing recreational use of marijuana in the states of Colorado and Washington. The Colorado measure requires a comprehensive system of statewide rules that will preempt local regulation of marijuana distribution. Similarly, the Washington measure creates a framework similar to the regulation of liquor, to be administered by the state Liquor Control Board. This issue will surely be confronted in California’s next marijuana-legalization initiative.

I thought the best opinion of the year was Justice Liu’s concurrence in People v. Barrett (54 Cal. 4th 1081, 1114–1151 (2012)). He concluded that a distinction between mentally ill persons and mentally retarded persons in the statutory right to advisement to be tried by a jury violates California’s own constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Thus the Mosk Doctrine – that state courts should look first to their independent state constitutions-lives on.

In my view, the worst opinion of the year was Justice Kennard’s majority opinion in In re Richards (55 Cal. 4th 948 (2012)). (See “Close Calls,” below.) By creating a shadowy distinction between the testimony of experts and the testimony of laypersons in applying the protections against false evidence in Penal Code section 1473(b), the decision creates a substantial obstacle to correcting what the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice identified as the second-most-common factor contributing to wrongful convictions: erroneous scientific evidence – in identifying “hair, bullets, handwriting, footprints, bite marks and even venerated fingerprints.”

The court’s opinion, by requiring that evidence that a forensic expert’s conclusions were mistaken must point “unerringly to innocence or reduced culpability,” would deny relief even if the defendant can show it is reasonably probable that the verdict would have been different absent the expert’s mistake.

A close runner-up for worst opinion of the year was Chief Cantil-Sakauye’s majority opinion in People v. Aranda (55 Cal. 4th 342 (2012)). In this case there was no question that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on reasonable doubt. But Cantil-Sakauye confidently concluded that it was harmless error because “there was no reasonable probability that the outcome” would have been different had the instruction been given. Yet both Justices Kennard and Liu dissented because they were not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury in the case applied the correct standard of proof.

If two justices on the state Supreme Court have a reasonable doubt, how can a majority of that court confidently conclude that a reasonable juror would not? In general, I’m suspicious of “harmless error” findings that are not unanimous. As Justice Liu noted in his dissent, “Until today, no California case had ever held or even suggested that despite a trial court’s failure to instruct the jury with a standard reasonable doubt instruction … an appellate court can still be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury understood its obligation.”

Original Actions in the Supreme Court

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the original actions in the supreme court laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of original actions in the supreme court in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with original actions in the supreme court. This introductory section covers case law related to original actions in the supreme court in California, the legal approach on original actions in the supreme court in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of original actions in the supreme court in California.

Original Actions in the Supreme Court in relation to Criminal Law & Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of original actions in the supreme court in this context, and provides information on its relation with Posttrial Matters; Appeals.

Resources

See Also

Jurisdiction

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Jurisdiction in California

Jurisdiction

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the jurisdiction laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of jurisdiction in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with jurisdiction. This introductory section covers case law related to jurisdiction in California, the legal approach on jurisdiction in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of jurisdiction in California.

Jurisdiction in relation to Criminal Law & Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of jurisdiction in this context, and provides information on its relation with Pretrial Proceedings and Preliminary Matters.

Resources

See Also

Appellate Review

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Appellate Review in California

Appellate Review

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the appellate review laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of appellate review in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with appellate review. This introductory section covers case law related to appellate review in California, the legal approach on appellate review in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of appellate review in California.

Appellate Review in relation to Criminal Law & Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of appellate review in this context, and provides information on its relation with Posttrial Matters; Appeals.

Appellate Review in California: General Overview

This entry offers readers with practical insight to the subject of appellate review in California, a general introduction to the legal issues relating to appellate review under California law and practice.

Resources

See Also

Bail

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Bail

California Bail

This section covers California-specific basic information on bail and related topics. Many of California's laws on bail are similar to those of other U.S. states, with some differences (in some cases, minor differences). California bail laws on bail are created and revised by the actions of lawmakers and the courts. Use the cross-references and topics below to learn more about California statutes and laws on bail, which is a basic matter in California law.

Bail and Recognizance

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the bail and recognizance laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of bail and recognizance in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with bail and recognizance. This introductory section covers case law related to bail and recognizance in California, the legal approach on bail and recognizance in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of bail and recognizance in California.

Bail and Recognizance in relation to Criminal Law & Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of bail and recognizance in this context, and provides information on its relation with Proceedings Before Prosecution.

Resources

See Also

Resources

See Also

Grand Jury

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Grand Jury

California Grand Jury

This section covers California-specific basic information on grand jury and related topics. Many of California's laws on grand jury are similar to those of other U.S. states, with some differences (in some cases, minor differences). California grand jury laws on grand jury are created and revised by the actions of lawmakers and the courts. Use the cross-references and topics below to learn more about California statutes and laws on grand jury, which is a basic matter in California law.

Grand Jury in relation to Criminal Law & Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of grand jury in this context, and provides information on its relation with Proceedings to Commence Prosecution

Resources

See Also

Costs

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Costs

California Costs

This section covers California-specific basic information on costs and related topics. Many of California's laws on costs are similar to those of other U.S. states, with some differences (in some cases, minor differences). California costs laws on costs are created and revised by the actions of lawmakers and the courts. Use the cross-references and topics below to learn more about California statutes and laws on costs, which is a basic matter in California law.

Costs and Fees

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the costs and fees laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of costs and fees in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with costs and fees. This introductory section covers case law related to costs and fees in California, the legal approach on costs and fees in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of costs and fees in California.

Costs and Fees in relation to Criminal Law & Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of costs and fees in this context, and provides information on its relation with Posttrial Matters; Appeals.

Resources

See Also

Resources

See Also

Venue

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Venue

California Venue

This section covers California-specific basic information on venue and related topics. Many of California's laws on venue are similar to those of other U.S. states, with some differences (in some cases, minor differences). California venue laws on venue are created and revised by the actions of lawmakers and the courts. Use the cross-references and topics below to learn more about California statutes and laws on venue, which is a basic matter in California law.

California Venue

This section covers California-specific basic information on venue and related topics. Many of California's laws on venue are similar to those of other U.S. states, with some differences (in some cases, minor differences). California venue laws on venue are created and revised by the actions of lawmakers and the courts. Use the cross-references and topics below to learn more about California statutes and laws on venue, which is a basic matter in California law.

Venue in relation to Criminal Law & Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of venue in this context, and provides information on its relation with Pretrial Proceedings and Preliminary Matters

Venue in California: General Overview

This entry offers readers with practical insight to the subject of venue in California, a general introduction to the legal issues relating to venue under California law and practice.

Resources

See Also

Resources

See Also

Verdicts

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Verdicts in California

Judgments: Entry, Enforcement and Modification

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the judgments: entry, enforcement and modification laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of judgments: entry, enforcement and modification in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with judgments: entry, enforcement and modification. This introductory section covers case law related to judgments: entry, enforcement and modification in California, the legal approach on judgments: entry, enforcement and modification in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of judgments: entry, enforcement and modification in California.

Judgments: Entry, Enforcement and Modification in relation to Civil Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of judgments: entry, enforcement and modification in this context.

Verdicts

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the verdicts laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of verdicts in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with verdicts. This introductory section covers case law related to verdicts in California, the legal approach on verdicts in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of verdicts in California.

Verdicts in relation to Criminal Law & Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of verdicts in this context, and provides information on its relation with Trial.

Resources

See Also

Resources

See Also

Counsel

This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Counsel in California

Right to counsel in civil trials

by Mike Rosen (2012)

San Francisco experiments with the right to counsel in civil trials.

A city ordinance signed by Mayor Ed Lee in April 2012 has made San Francisco the first city in the nation to create a guaranteed right to civil counsel. Although the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a right to legal representation in criminal matters in the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright (372 U.S. 335 (1963)), no such corresponding right exists in the civil arena, despite what some see as a greater need for it.

“You cannot have a more compelling cause than child custody or shelter for family,” says Robert Rubin, former litigation director for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. Rubin brought the proposal to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors last fall, together with Shearman & Sterling partner James J. Donato and Morrison & Foerster partner James J. Brosnahan. Rubin argues that while rights threatened in civil court go unprotected by counsel, “You would get a lawyer if you were facing six months of probation for stealing a magazine.”

The ordinance, passed in March by the Board of Supervisors, authorizes a one-year Right to Civil Counsel pilot program but restricts the city’s financial commitment to paying one staff person to coordinate the city, clients, and pro bono lawyers. To be eligible for free counsel, a person would need to live within 200 percent of the federal poverty line and have a case touching on “a basic human need,” such as housing, safety, or child custody.

According to a 2010 report by the Judicial Council of California, 80 percent of litigants in California’s family law courts and more than 90 percent of those in tenancy disputes represent themselves. Some aid has come through California’s 2009 Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act, which created $9.5 million in grants to help low-income clients obtain representation in civil matters.

California’s pilot programs are the first instance of city or state governments taking steps to offer a right to civil counsel; in other states efforts are driven mostly by private bars, legal service organizations, and court-created justice commissions. For example, in 2009 the Philadelphia Bar started civil Gideon pilot projects in mortgage foreclosure and child custody cases. In 2007 the Boston Bar conducted a similar project with regard to eviction cases.

The San Francisco ordinance comes at a time when the court system is struggling to meet its responsibilities to the public. But Brosnahan says the ordinance could help lighten the load on courts by reducing delays caused by pro se litigants unfamiliar with court procedures. Judges would also intervene less often to explain procedures to unrepresented parties and thus avoid accusations that they are biased.

“This is a problem that gets worse and worse,” says Brosnahan. “On the fifth floor of the superior court in San Francisco, you see people in huge lines at the self-help window. It’s pathetic our society can’t do better.”
If successful, the program will become permanent, adds Brosnahan, who hopes to introduce similar proposals in other cities.

Lawrence J. Siskind, a partner at Harvey Siskind in San Francisco and a civil Gideon critic, expressed skepticism about taking on the added expense of a civil-right-to-counsel program when California’s court system is already facing a financing crisis. He says that private legal aid groups are better positioned to decide which cases are most worthy of counsel.

Still, supporters say that the ordinance could save the city money in the long run. “By not providing counsel, cities and states end up paying the costs down the road,” says John Pollock, coordinator for the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel, “in extended foster care or more police enforcement or homeless shelters. The San Francisco ordinance is very innovative and noteworthy. It’s a milestone.”

Arguments and Conduct of Counsel, Judge and Others

Welcome to the California legal encyclopedia's introductory part covering the arguments and conduct of counsel, judge and others laws of California, with explanations of the various implications of arguments and conduct of counsel, judge and others in California and the statutes enforced in California in connexion with arguments and conduct of counsel, judge and others. This introductory section covers case law related to arguments and conduct of counsel, judge and others in California, the legal approach on arguments and conduct of counsel, judge and others in the United States and related topics. The information below provides an California-specific general overview of the legal regime of arguments and conduct of counsel, judge and others in California.

Arguments and Conduct of Counsel, Judge and Others in relation to Criminal Law & Procedure

This section analizes the legal issue of arguments and conduct of counsel, judge and others in this context, and provides information on its relation with Trial.

Resources

See Also