This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The California Supreme Court held Monday that prisoners are entitled to a lawyer before a trial court can consider their record of conviction in determining whether the prisoners may challenge their murder convictions for killings committed by others. The new law in question was California Senate Bill No.
The Supreme Court yesterday denied review in In re Mendoza , a pro per’s petition for review seeking discovery and appointment of counsel under the California Racial Justice Act ( here and here ). ” The dissenters claim that the court’s “inaction portends a silent evisceration of the RJA.”
Resentencing primafaciecase. Reyes , one of many cases concerning possible resentencing under Senate Bill 1437 (more about today’s Reyes decision later [ update : here ]), the court agreed to take on yet another SB 1437 case, People v. Those actions included: Supreme Court will hear Prop. 22 challenge.
The Supreme Court today barely denied review in In re Banks , with Justices Goodwin Liu, Leondra Kruger, and Kelli Evans voting to grant and send the case to the Court of Appeal for issuance of an order to show cause on a pro per’s habeas corpus petition seeking relief under the California Racial Justice Act ( here and here ).
The court issued writs of review in California-American Water Company v. ” The dissent asserted the defendant had made a primafaciecase of, and was thus entitled to a hearing on, racial discrimination in charging Black defendants with felony-murder special circumstance penalty enhancements in Orange County.
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero has cited the California Racial Justice Act ( here and here ) as one of the “important landmark new laws” that is “impacting [the court’s] workflow.” The court yesterday denied review and a depublication request in one case involving that legislation, Mosby v.
and California Supreme Court decisions holding it unconstitutional for an attorney to racially discriminate in peremptorily challenging prospective jurors. The superior court ruled the defendant had not made even a primafaciecase of discrimination and thus did not require the prosecutor to justify his challenge.
The Fourth District, Division Two, summarily denied a pro per’s habeas corpus petition seeking relief for alleged violations of the California Racial Justice Act ( here and here ). As such, petitioner’s claims fail to state a primafaciecase for relief”; it also said “The request for discovery.
Assuring that “[t]he Goddess of justice is not wearing a black armband today weeping for the California Constitution,” a 2-1 Second District, Division Six, published opinion said “[i]t is our Constitutional obligation to affirm a judgment, where a more favorable outcome will not result upon reversal.” 29; see also Cal.
In June we wrote the California Racial Justice Act ( here and here ) “is a good candidate to be the next big thing on the courts docket. The Supreme Court had asked for an informal response concerning “whether petitioner has set forth a primafaciecase for relief on his claim under the Racial Justice Act.”
Supreme Court’s Batson decision and the California Supreme Court’s Wheeler decision establish that it’s unconstitutional for an attorney to racially discriminate in peremptorily challenging prospective jurors. The prosecution used peremptory challenges to excuse five Black women from the jury.
Rosas Judge Collins / Ninth Circuit / December 10, 2021 Case Overview The case involved Arroyo, a person with a disability, who filed a lawsuit against Rosas for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content