The Inquisitive Prosecutors’ Guide
2020-IPG-46 (SUBPOENAS FOR THIRD-PARTY RECORDS - FACEBOOK V. SUPERIOR COURT)

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

September 17, 2020

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-46 (SUBPOENAS FOR THIRD-PARTY RECORDS - FACEBOOK V. SUPERIOR COURT) - PDF VERSION

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

September 17, 2020

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. 

icon for podbean
2020-IPG-45 (FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING -RENEAUX)

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

August 19, 2020

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.

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

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

June 12, 2020

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.

Watch Now:
2020-IPG-44 (NEW BAIL CASES: WHITE, AYALA & ER4)- PDF VERSION

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

June 12, 2020

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.

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

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

May 27, 2020

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.   

2020-IPG-43 (LOPEZ TERMINATES ARTURO D. VEHICLES SEARCHS FOR PERSONAL ID) - PDF VERSION
2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”)

2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”)

December 2, 2019

2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”)

This Inquisitive Prosecutors Guide discusses the California Supreme Court case of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2019) 8 Cal.5th 828, the modification to the Pitchess statutes made by Senate Bill 1421 (SB 1421), and the respective impacts of both on various issues relating to prosecutorial disclosure obligations. The accompanying podcast features a conversation with discovery expert, Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney David Angel and will attempt to answer over a dozen questions raised by the case and SB 1421, including: (1) Can, must, or should law enforcement agencies provide “Brady tips” to prosecutors? (2) Can prosecutors pass on to defense attorneys “Brady tips” received from law enforcement agencies without complying with the Pitchess procedures? (3) Can law enforcement agencies provide information about officers who might be witnesses in a future prosecution? and (4) What peace officer personnel files do or don’t remain confidential under SB 1421?   The accompanying podcast will provide 80 minutes of general MCLE credit.

2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”) - PDF VERSION

2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”) - PDF VERSION

December 2, 2019

2019-IPG-42 (ALADS, SB 1421, & “BRADY LISTS”)

This Inquisitive Prosecutors Guide discusses the California Supreme Court case of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2019) 8 Cal.5th 828, the modification to the Pitchess statutes made by Senate Bill 1421 (SB 1421), and the respective impacts of both on various issues relating to prosecutorial disclosure obligations. The accompanying podcast features a conversation with discovery expert, Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney David Angel and will attempt to answer over a dozen questions raised by the case and SB 1421, including: (1) Can, must, or should law enforcement agencies provide “Brady tips” to prosecutors? (2) Can prosecutors pass on to defense attorneys “Brady tips” received from law enforcement agencies without complying with the Pitchess procedures? (3) Can law enforcement agencies provide information about officers who might be witnesses in a future prosecution? and (4) What peace officer personnel files do or don’t remain confidential under SB 1421?   The accompanying podcast will provide 80 minutes of general MCLE credit.

icon for podbean
2019-IPG-41 (IMPEACHMENT WITH CONVICTIONS & MISCONDUCT OF MORAL TURPITUDE)

2019-IPG-41 (IMPEACHMENT WITH CONVICTIONS & MISCONDUCT OF MORAL TURPITUDE)

September 24, 2019

2019-IPG-41 (IMPEACHMENT WITH CONVICTIONS & MISCONDUCT OF MORAL TURPITUDE)

In this edition of IPG, we address the various issues that arise when seeking to impeach a witness or defendant with prior convictions or misconduct.  Among the issues discussed: (i) when a witness can be asked about conduct underlying a felony conviction involving moral turpitude for purposes of impeachment; (ii) when a person can be impeached with a felony conviction that has been subject to relief pursuant to Penal Code sections 1203.4 et seq.; (iii) what information a prosecutor must know or have before questioning a defendant about a prior conviction; (iv) when a witness can be impeached with noncriminal misconduct of moral turpitude; (v) whether a defendant or witness is entitled to bring out the fact the impeaching conduct resulted in a dismissal or an acquittal; and (vi) when a defendant or witness can successfully assert the Fifth Amendment privilege as to questions about pending criminal conduct being offered to impeach.   The accompanying podcast will provide 75 minutes of general MCLE credit.

Play this podcast on Podbean App