Civil rights - police withholding exculpatory evidence
Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir., 12/8/08, 06-15426) ___ F.3d ___
Former San Francisco Police Inspectors Napoleon Hendrix and Earl Sanders (later Chief of Police) were not entitled to qualified or absolute immunity after withholding exculpatory evidence that resulted in plaintiffs serving 13 years in prison for a crime they did not commit. Brady v. Maryland imposes a duty upon both prosecutors and police officers to disclose exculpatory evidence. Just placing it in the file is not enough. "Evidence that a person, known to the officers, has told the officers that they have arrested the wrong people, has identified the people involved, including the shooter, and described the cars and the chase in a manner consistent with the evidence, should not have been buried in a file, but should have been made known to the prosecutor." Additionally, the inspectors were not acting in an "advocacy role" when they withheld a third party's confession.
Drugs - insufficient evidence of conspiracy
United States v. Tran (9th Cir., 6/24/09, 07-30270) ___ F.3d ___
Although co-defendant's plea agreement was admissible as prior inconsistent statement to impeach co-defendant's trial testimony that was favorable to defendant, "the evidence was insufficient to show that [defendant] had even a slight connection to the conspiracy." The government's proof was "only amounts to" the defendant's presence as a passenger in a car containing large amounts of marijuana in the trunk, and defendant's knowledge of marijuana distribution tactics, admitted only to show knowledge.
Homicide - natural consequence of target assault
People v. Medina (Ca. Sup. Ct., 6/22/09, S155823) ___ Cal.4th ___
Shooting death of victim was reasonably foreseeable consequence of assault by gang members on another gang, and murder convictions of non-shooters affirmed.
Joinder - of counts at defense request
People v. Butler (Ca. Sup. Ct., 6/18/09, S055501) ___ Cal.4th ___
Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to join, at defense request, unrelated murder counts. Argument for joinder request was that prosecutor was keeping counts separate in order to have two opportunities to obtain death penalty based on same set of fact. The joinder would have required a severance of defendants on the second murder count and the uncertainty, complication and delay arising from the situation justified the denial of the motion. See Penal Code section 954.
Juveniles - commitment to DJF
In re M.B. (5th Dist., 6/18/09, F055289) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Welfare & Institutions Code section 733 allows juvenile court to commit ward to Division of Juvenile Facilities (formerly CYA) for probation violation, where offense for which probation granted was a DJF-eligible offense and no petition alleging a more recent non-DJF-eligible offense had been sustained.
Parole - hold past release date
In re Hovanski (3rd Dist., 6/19/09, C059192) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Welfare & Institutions Code section 6601.3, which permits Board of Parole Hearings to order inmate referred to Department of Mental Health for evaluation as potential sexually violent predator allows a hold, placed on the last day before parole discharge date, which results in inmate being incarcerated past his parole discharge date.
Rape - foreign object prohibition on probation
People v. Valdez (4th Dist., 6/19/09, E045289) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Prohibition in Penal Code section 1203.065 to grant of probation to those convicted of rape with foreign object does not violate equal protection even though persons convicted of spousal rape may be granted probation. Court finds that because spousal rape may result in the birth of a legitimate child, and that is a legitimate reason for granting the father probation. Also, there may be a likelihood of greater injury in rape with foreign object. Distinguishes People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185.
Search & seizure - forcible DNA taking
Friedman v. Boucher (9th Cir., 6/23/09, 05-15675) ___ F.3d ___
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Detective Dolphus Boucher, acting with the approval of Clark County Deputy District Attorney Elissa Luzaich, violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by forcibly taking a DNA sample, without warrant or court order, just in order to put it into a cold case databank. "In short, no reasonable detective or prosecutor could have thought that they could forcibly take a DNA sample ... without violating ... Fourth Amendment rights."
Statute of limitations - home equity sales fraud
People v. Shetty (2nd Dist., 6/18/09, B205061) ___ Cal.App.4th ___
Conviction by plea to misdemeanor count of home equity sales fraud (Civil Code sec. 1695.8) not barred by statute of limitations. Offense is "wobbler" (alternative felony/misdemeanor), so applicable statute of limitations is the felony term of four years, because it is a crime involving fraud, under Penal Code section 801.5 and 803, subdivision (c), even though the specific section is not listed in section 803, subdivision (c)(1)-(11). Enumerated offenses are illustrative only.
Voir dire - limitations on asking about penalty phase
People v. Butler (Ca. Sup. Ct., 6/18/09, S055501) ___ Cal.4th ___
Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to allow defense counsel to ask about a killing that would be introduced as aggravating evidence in penalty phase. A defendant cannot insist upon questions that are so specific that they expose jurors to the facts of the case.
Note: counsel might have been able to ask the question as a hypothetical.
