May 8, 2008 Reasonable Doubts
SPEEDY TRIAL - FEDERAL - TOLLING
United States v. Pete (9th Cir. 5/8/08, 06-10390) 08 C.D.O.S. 5496
Delay caused by defendant's interlocutory appeal including up until
Supreme Court denied cert was excludable from Speedy Trial Act's
filing requirement.
SPEEDY TRIAL - FEDERAL - FAILURE TO ARREST OR NOTIFY DEFENDANT ABROAD
United States v. Mendoza (9th Cir. 5/8/08, 06-50447) 08 C.D.O.S. 5505
Eight-year delay between indictment and arrest violated Sixth
Amendment when government made no effort to arrest defendant who had
gone to the Phillipines but left contact information, or to contact
him to inform him of warrant. All government did was to enter warrant
into American law enforcement system. Compare, United States v. Corona-
Verbera (9th Cir. 2007) 509 F.3d 1105 (government contacted Unsolved
Mysteries and America's Most Wanted, which aired over 20 segments in
U.S. and Mexico).
EXPERTS - CRIMINOLOGIST AS PRISON LIFE ADJUSTMENT EXPERT
People v. Watson (Ca. Sup. Ct., 5/8/08, S024471) 08 C.D.O.S. 5515
Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding testimony of
defense criminologist about defendant's adjustment to prison life. "As
the court reasoned, Sickler characterized himself not as an expert,
but as a penalty phase investigator whose role was to collect and
analyze records and information from lay witnesses about a defendant's
background, and to "synthesize" such data for the jury. Although the
stresses of prison life and an individual's ability to adapt to such
circumstances are subjects beyond common experience and expert
testimony thereon likely would have likely been helpful to the jury
(Evid. Code, ? 801, subd. (a)), Sickler was not qualified to offer
such testimony. Sickler had a significant educational background in
criminal justice and was experienced in noncapital sentencing
alternatives, but he was not a psychologist and candidly acknowledged
he was not qualified to offer an expert opinion as to the
psychological impact of defendant's upbringing on his current behavior
or how defendant would actually adjust to life in prison."
EVIDENCE - DESTRUCTIVE BLOOD TEST RESULTS
People v. Varghese (C.A. 4th, 5/8/08, D048456) 08 C.D.O.S. 5545
Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing confidential DNA
test that would have destroyed remainder of blood stain. Prosecution
suggested a neutral expert who would reveal results to both sides but
defendant refused, arguing that DA had already tested it once. Court
distinguishes Prince v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1176
because there the sample was large enough to allow each party to
conduct five DNA tests.

Recent Comments