Pretrial Proceedings
Category > Pretrial Proceedings
Pre-preliminary hearing procedure violates provision prohibiting judges from reviewing police reports and defendant's record prior to the entry of a plea.As part of a criminal trial coordination program it is the policy of the Contra Costa County Municipal and Superior Courts to review pre-preliminary hearing reports summarizing police reports and defendant's record prior to the entry of a plea. However, this policy violates Penal Code section 1204.5 which prohibits a judge from considering such material absent a defendant's consent prior to the entry of a plea or guilty verdict.id: 11434
Trial court must advise a defendant of his right to counsel at his arraignment in municipal court and at his subsequent arraignment in superior court.The trial court must advise a defendant of his right to counsel at his arraignment in municipal court and at his subsequent arraignment in superior court, even where the same judge presides over both proceedings as part of a consolidated court. Moreover, where the prosecutor charges a defendant with a felony complaint in municipal court, the defendant's waiver of his right to counsel in the municipal court does not waive his right to counsel in the superior court. This is so even where the same judge presides over the proceedings in municipal court and superior court as part of a consolidated felony panel.id: 15692
An indicted defendant may obtain discovery of nontestimonial grand jury proceedings to prepare a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of probable cause.A trial court does not abuse its discretion in compelling disclosure of nontestimonial portions of grand jury proceedings to assist defendant in preparing a statutory motion to dismiss the indictment, including advice, instruction, argument and other communications between the district attorney and the grand jury such as questions and answers, readbacks of testimony, as well as questions and answers between the court and jury. Disclosure is not permitted of information which has no bearing on defendant's statutory and due process rights to bring a motion to dismiss the indictment, including information regarding the identities of the grand jurors and other persons present, or the dates or lengths of the sessions.id: 15691
Absent a written waiver of presence, a defendant’s nonappearance at a pretrial proceeding constitutes a basis to forfeit bail. If a defendant fails to execute a written waiver of personal presence, his or her nonappearance at a scheduled pretrial proceeding is a basis to forfeit bail under Penal Code section 1305, subd.(a).id: 24506
Gang injunction was proper but the provisions regarding possession of drugs or alcohol in public were vague and needed to be modified. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Broderick Boys was a criminal street gang whose activities created a public nuisance in a three mile square area in West Sacramento and enjoining their activities in that area. However, the provision prohibiting possession or sales of drugs was vague and would have improperly prohibited gang members from entering a drug store. Likewise, the provision prohibiting the public consumption of alcohol was vague and would have prohibited the consumption of alcohol in bars and restaurants. id: 21900
Grand juries have the power to issue subpoenas duces tecum.California grand juries have the power, stemming from both common law tradition and statutory enactment, to issue subpoenas duces tecum. Moreover, such subpoenas do not require good cause affidavits.id: 17076
Prosecutor did not err in failing to remind the grand jury of its independent duty to investigate the exculpatory evidence where warranted.The prosecutor did not mislead the grand jury into believing it could not exercise its statutory power to request the superior court to subpoena additional witnesses or to order production of additional evidence during the proceedings. The prosecutor's comments essentially informed the grand jury that there was no additional evidence to present and that no exculpatory evidence was available at the time of the grand jury's questions. Although the prosecutor told the grand jury not to speculate about the evidence presented, he never stated the grand jury could not exercise its independent powers to hear additional, exculpatory evidence.id: 11435
Statements made within 48 hours of arrest were not the product of an illegal delay in arraigning and appointing counsel in violation of section 825 and the 48-hour rule.Defendant was arrested on Sunday, August 5, for murder. He argued his Tuesday, August 7, statements should have been suppressed because they were the product of an unreasonable delay under Penal Code section 825 and contravened the 48-hour rule for judicial determinations of probable cause set forth <i>Riverside v. McLaughlin,</i> (1991) 500 U.S. 44. However, despite the fact that defendant was not arraigned until the morning of Wednesday, August 8, pursuant to the local court procedure where arraignments were not done in the afternoon, defendants's statements were made Tuesday afternoon within the 48-hour period. Moreover, there was no evidence the arraignment was delayed for purposes of obtaining the challenged statements and no assertion that the delayed arraignment somehow caused the statements.id: 11436
Stipulation to admission of a victim's grand jury testimony was not tantamount to a guilty plea and further advisement and waivers were not required.Defendant argued the advisements given and waivers obtained when he agreed to allow the 6 year old victim's grand jury testimony in lieu of her appearance at trial were insufficient under <i>Bunnell v. Superior Court</i> (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592. However, the failure to expressly advise defendant and obtain a waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination and failure to fully advise him of the consequences of his conviction was not erroneous as the submission bore an insufficient resemblance to a guilty plea for the advisement to be constitutionally required. Even if there was error in failing to fully advise defendant it was harmless where he did not demonstrate a more favorable outcome was reasonably likely had he been properly advised.id: 11437
Trial court erred in granting pretrial motion to declare Unemployment Insurance Code violations charged as felonies to be misdemeanors as a matter of law.Defendants were charged with felony violations of Unemployment Insurance Code section 2101, subdivision (a). The trial court erred in granting defendants' pretrial motion to declare the charged crimes to be misdemeanors. The court's order effectively usurped the charging prerogative of the prosecutor, lacked underlying statutory authority, and required reversal. Moreover, the court's order was tantamount to a dismissal of the felony charges and was appealable by the People.id: 11438
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245