
(1) Showing a crime victim a “sixpack” photo lineup, instead of showing the photos sequentially, and where the investigator showing the lineup knows who the suspect is instead of administering a “blind” lineup, is constitutionally permissible.
(2) An in-court witness identification of a defendant is legally sufficient so long as it is based upon the witness’ “independent recollection.”
(3) When an in-custody suspect freely reinitiates communication with law enforcement, resulting incriminating statements are admissible against him in court despite an earlier invocation of his Miranda rights.
(4) A criminal defendant has the right to testify, even over the objection of his attorney. However, that decision has to be made known to the trial court before the end of the trial, thus allowing the court to counsel the defendant concerning his or her rights.
(5) A criminal defendant is entitled to both a statutory and a constitutional right to a speedy trial. Despite this right, the defendant’s criminal case may be delayed upon a wavier of the parties and/or a showing of “good cause.” A defense attorney’s need to work for other clients is valid basis for overriding a defendant’s speedy trial rights.
(6) The California Racial Justice Act of 2020 is intended to eliminate racial bias from California’s criminal justice system. However, whether the RJA benefits the defendant in this case, absent a showing of “good cause,” is best litigated via a writ of habeas corpus as opposed to remanding the case to the Superior Court pending appeal.
In early 2000, defendant Javance Mickey Wilson concocted an interesting way to make money: stealing it from cabdrivers while cold-bloodedly executing them. On Jan. 7, 2000, Wilson was picked up by ....