The Inquisitive Prosecutors' Guide

2023-IPG-58 (DISCLOSURE OF RAP SHEETS EXCULPATORY INFO IN GRAND JURY RECORDS)

This edition of the Inquisitive Prosecutor’s Guide discusses prosecutorial obligations when it comes to the criminal history records (rap sheets) of defendants, victims, and witnesses in general as well as obligations to provide exculpatory information in grand jury records in light of the most recent Attorney General opinions on these obligations. (See 105 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 146; 105 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 157; 2023 WL 6009198, at p. *1 (Cal.A.G. Aug. 24, 2023).) Plus, the podcast will cover of Assembly Bill 709 (going into effect on January 1, 2024) and its impact on Brady list disclosures.  

2023-IPG-57 (RECENT CSC OPINIONS: LEWIS AND PRUDHOLME)

2023-IPG-57 (RECENT CSC OPINIONS: LEWIS AND PRUDHOLME)

This edition of the Inquisitive Prosecutor’s Guide discusses two recent California Supreme Court decisions.  In the first case (People v. Lewis (2023) 14 Cal.5th 876), the court decided the issue of whether the element of “force or fear” is “relaxed” when the adult being kidnapped is too intoxicated to consent to the movement.  The trial prosecutor (Santa Clara County DDA Jonathan Beardsley) in that case joins the podcast as a guest.   In the second case (People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, the court decided the question of whether the legislative reduction in probationary periods enacted by AB 1950 (that went into effect in 2021) applied retroactively to defendants whose cases were not final – even if the length of the probationary period had been negotiated as part of a plea bargain.  Santa Clara County DDA Pablo Wudka-Robles joins the podcast to discuss that case.

2023-IPG-55 (IMMUNITY ISSUES)

2023-IPG-55 (IMMUNITY ISSUES)

This edition of the Inquisitive Prosecutors’ Guide discusses immunity grants (use, derivative use, and transactional), and issues relating to immunity, including, but not limited to: (i) when a person is entitled or not entitled to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege; (ii) when a person’s refusal to testify may be done in front of a jury; (iii) formal statutory grants of immunity in felony (PC § 1324), misdemeanor (PC § 1324.1), and juvenile (CRC Rule 5.548) cases; (iv) informal (nonstatutory) immunity agreements and proffers; (v) Kastigar hearings; (vi) judicially-initiated immunity grants in criminal cases and quasi-criminal cases; (vii) judicially-initiated immunity grants in civil cases; (viii) legislatively-authorized grants of immunity in non-criminal cases; (ix) hen and how prosecutors can use immunized (Lybarger’d) statements of public safety officers or other government employees (Spielbauer’d) statements.  The podcast features Santa Clara County Supervising District Attorney Bryan Slater. 

2021-IPG-51 (MJ CAR SEARCHES & NONCUSTODIAL SEARCHES OF PERSONS CITED FOR H&S 11550 VIOLATIONS)

This podcast of the Inquisitive Prosecutors’ Guide discusses (i) when officers have probable cause to search vehicles based on the odor or presence of marijuana in light of the all the most recent published and unpublished case law and Proposition 64 (which legalized possession and use of marijuana under certain circumstances) and (ii) when (or if) officers can search a person for evidence of drug use based on probable cause to believe the person is under the influence of unlawful drugs even when the officer is not going to make a custodial arrest.  The podcast features Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Melissa Castillo.

2021-IPG-50 (LANGE V. CALIFORNIA – SCOTUS ON HOT PURSUIT)

2021-IPG-50 (LANGE V. CALIFORNIA – SCOTUS ON HOT PURSUIT)

This edition of the Inquisitive Prosecutor’s Guide discusses the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Lange v. California (2021) 141 S.Ct. 2011, a case deciding the issue of whether the flight of a suspected misdemeanant will always justify a warrantless entry by police into a home when they are in hot pursuit of a suspected misdemeanant who has just fled inside a home.  We discuss the current state of the law is and try to provide answers to some questions left open or unclear by the decision in Lange.  The guest for the podcast is Sonoma County Deputy District Attorney Robert Maddock.  DDA Maddock argued the case of Lange when it was still in the superior court appellate division and subsequently wrote an amicus brief on behalf of his office and the California District Attorney’s Association when the case got to the High Court.

2021-IPG-49 (COMMUNITY CARETAKING EXCEPTION-CANIGLIA AND MORE)

This podcast of the Inquisitive Prosecutors’ Guide discusses the latest case from the United States Supreme Court on the scope of the “community caretaking” rationale (Caniglia v. Strom (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1596) as well as a decision from the California Supreme Court that foreshadowed the decision in Caniglia (People v. Ovieda (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1034) and several other cases bearing on when the community caretaking rationale will or will not justify a search.  IPG attempts to figure out how the decisions in Caniglia and Ovieda will impact existing case law regarding home entries in response to suicidal persons, reports of gun use, and searches and seizures for firearms belonging to persons with mental health issues.  The IPG also discusses what, if any, will be the impact of Caniglia and Ovieda on use of the community caretaking rationale in other contexts than home entries and when police seek to rely upon the exigent circumstances exception (including the emergency branch of that exception) to justify searches.  The podcast features search and seizure expert and author of Point of View and California Criminal Investigation: Alameda County Senior Deputy District Attorney Mark Hutchins.

2020-IPG-46 (SUBPOENAS FOR THIRD-PARTY RECORDS - FACEBOOK V. SUPERIOR COURT)

2020-IPG-46 (SUBPOENAS FOR THIRD-PARTY RECORDS - FACEBOOK V. SUPERIOR COURT)

This podcast of the Inquisitive Prosecutors’ Guide discusses the latest case from the California Supreme Court on subpoenaing third party records in a criminal case with a focus on obtaining social media records.   (Facebook v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Touchstone) (2020) 10 Cal.5th 329.    If you ever plan to subpoena such records or to quash a subpoena seeking such records, this is the podcast for you. 

2020-IPG-45 (FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING -RENEAUX)

2020-IPG-45 (FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING -RENEAUX)

This IPG discusses the latest case (People v. Reneaux (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 852) to weigh in on the scope of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine and the hearsay exception (Evidence Code section 1390) that embodies the doctrine.  This IPG is a joint production with Points and Authorities and the podcast may be viewed as a video that can be accessed by the link below.  Accompanying this IPG is a 36-page bench memo stocked with all the recent case law explaining how the doctrine and hearsay exception should be interpreted.  The memo serves double duty as a up to date and comprehensive compendium of the law governing the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine and section 1390.

2020-IPG-44 (NEW BAIL CASES: WHITE, AYALA & ER4)

2020-IPG-44 (NEW BAIL CASES: WHITE, AYALA & ER4)

This edition of IPG features a new case from the California Supreme Court discussing when a trial court can deny bail to a defendant and the standard of review for that decision (In re White 2020 WL 2563831) as well as an appellate court case dealing with the scope and validity of Emergency Rule 4, adopted by the Judicial Council of California in response to the ongoing emergency situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (Ayala v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 387.  Plus, an update on the status of Emergency Rule 4 -the rule relating to bail.

2020-IPG-43 (LOPEZ TERMINATES ARTURO D. VEHICLES SEARCHS FOR PERSONAL ID)

2020-IPG-43 (LOPEZ TERMINATES ARTURO D. VEHICLES SEARCHS FOR PERSONAL ID)

In this edition of IPG, we address the California Supreme Court case of People v. Lopez (2019) 8 Cal.5th 353, which held that searches of vehicles stopped for a traffic infraction will generally violate the Fourth Amendment if based solely upon the driver’s failure to provide a license or other identification upon request.  This holding overruled an earlier decision of the California Supreme Court in In re Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60.  We also discuss some of the potential questions that might arise regarding what officers can or cannot do in light of the decision and its rationale, as well as potential alternative exceptions to the warrant requirement that will allow vehicle searches in situations that often may be present when a driver has no identification.