The Inquisitive Prosecutors’ Guide
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.

MORAL-TURPITUDE-CRIMES-LIST.09-25-19- PDF VERSION
2018-IPG-39 (NEW RESENTENCING PROVISIONS OF PC § 1170(d)(1))

2018-IPG-39 (NEW RESENTENCING PROVISIONS OF PC § 1170(d)(1))

November 2, 2018
2018-IPG-39 (NEW RESENTENCING PROVISIONS OF PC § 1170(d)(1) - PDF VERSION

2018-IPG-39 (NEW RESENTENCING PROVISIONS OF PC § 1170(d)(1) - PDF VERSION

November 2, 2018
icon for podbean