When can non-expert opinions be admissible in court? In this article From the Classroom series, we discuss the Opinion Evidence Rule and when a lay person’s -- even a veteran officer’s -- observations and descriptions can be used to clarify for the trier of fact.
For three centuries, courts around the world have recognized that someone’s dying words are important – so crucial that they should be believed and allowed in court after the victim has died. We discuss the specifics here.
What if a witness recants their interview answers later in court? What if they can’t remember what they said? Their statements may be used in court if they meet one of the exceptions to the Hearsay Evidence Rule.
CA Appellate Courts in Conflict over "Creative Expression " -Fourth DCA rejects retroactive application of 352.2 E.C. - a conflict that will need to be decided by the CA Supreme Court.
Burglary conviction reversed when trial court judge erroneously modified the definition of theft. This case emphasizes the proper approach in proving the premeditation element of 459 P.C
The majority of the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that a private citizen has a First Amendment right to videotape public officials in public, but for "livestreaming" the issues are a bit different.
Unnecessarily honking one’s car horn is a violation of V.C. § 27001, even when done for the purpose of expressing a political or social viewpoint.
"From the Classroom" - This is the seventh in a series of bulletins covering the California Evidence Code and criminal investigations. We begin covering the Hearsay Evidence Rule as it relates to an officer, deputy, or investigator giving testimony in court (140 E.C.).
"From the Classroom" - This is the sixth in a series of bulletins covering the California Evidence Code and criminal investigations. This next series will cover the Hearsay Evidence Rule as it relates to an officer, deputy, or investigator giving testimony in court (140 E.C.).
In this Case Alert, we explore an unusual California Supreme Court ruling that remanded a 2000 case back to the trial court after a new section was added to the 2023 Evidence Code in an effort to prevent racial stereotyping.
