"From the Classroom" - This is the sixth in a series of bulletins covering the California Evidence Code and criminal investigations. This next series will cover the Hearsay Evidence Rule as it relates to an officer, deputy, or investigator giving testimony in court (140 E.C.).
In this Case Alert, we explore an unusual California Supreme Court ruling that remanded a 2000 case back to the trial court after a new section was added to the 2023 Evidence Code in an effort to prevent racial stereotyping.
When impounding a car, keep in mind the Fourth Amendment guidelines that cover why you’re searching and what evidence might be inadmissible if you don’t follow case law. Understand the “caretaking purpose” for impounds.
June 2022 decision by the nation’s high court overturned a N.Y. court’s ruling on the basis that it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The ruling says that state statutes restricting a law-abiding adult citizens’ right to keep and bear arms by requiring a showing of “proper cause” are unconstitutional.
In this fifth series of articles on privileges in the California Evidence Code, we explore news “shield laws” and what they mean for a criminal investigation vs. the First Amendment. The courts and state legislators have set a high bar in efforts to compel journalists to reveal information gathered in the course of reporting.
In this fourth of a series on witness privileges, we discuss the therapist-patient privilege, which commonly arises in cases involving sanity, voluntary intoxication, unconscious of the act, involuntary intoxication and other health conditions. We also see a rare successful application of a defense argument in a DUI case.
This is third in a series of articles covering the California Evidence Code and criminal investigations. This time we will cover the Doctor/Patient and Clergy/Confessor privileges. One will be an easy source for suspect statements and the other is pretty much “locked down”, even more so than Attorney/Client.
We delve into the details of two unusual cases that require looking carefully at the facts but also the intent of the law’s wording, and considering not just the physical location that a crime occurred but where it was planned.
In this edition of “From the Classroom,” Professor Emeritus Ray Hill discusses the hallowed attorney-client privilege, its ethical and regulatory basis, and cites examples of potential violations and exceptions to the rule.
Defendant was convicted of dissuading a victim after he prevented her from reaching her phone as he attacked her. On appeal, the defense argued that the dissuading statute at issue applied only to crimes that have already occurred, not to crimes in progress. The new ruling offers clarity on how broadly the statute should be interpreted.
