Reasonable Doubts - Feb. 24, 2010
Confessions - break in custody
Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680, Supreme Court, Feb. 24, 2010) U.S.
Because defendant experienced a break in custody as defined by Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 did not require suppresstion of the statements obtained during the second interrogation.
Discovery - Penal Code section 1054.9
Burton v. Superior Court (People) (C062419, 3d Dist, Feb. 19, 2010) Cal.App.4th
Because there is no requirement that a defendant sentenced to death or LWOP be represented by counsel before he may file a discovery motion under Penal Code section 1054.9, superior court is ordered to vacate its order denying discovery.
Immunity - compelled disclosure
People v. Singleton (B211975, 4th Dist, Feb. 22, 2010) Cal.App.4th
Defendant, a former police officer charged with assaulting an arrestee and filing a false police report, gave a compelled statement after being advised it would not be used against him criminally, under Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 40 Cal.3d 822. The DA called the investigating officer, but only to opine whether defendant had control of the arrestee during part of arrest portrayed in video. This testimony did not violate Kastigar v. U.S. (1972) 406 U.S. 441 (testimony of witnesses exposed to compelled statements) because witness relied on independent sources to base opinion.
Sex registration - equal protection violation
People v. Travella (H033992, 6th Dist, Feb. 23, 2010) Cal.App.4th
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge David Cena erred in denying petitioner's motion to terminate his duty to register as sex offender for 1987 violation for Penal Code section 288a(b)(2) under rule of People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 (equal protection violation to treat similarly situated sex offenders differently). COA says "motion to vacate" should be treated as action seeking declaratory judgment.
