×
You've used up your 3 free articles for this month. Subscribe today.
California Court of Appeal: Exclusion of Expert Witness at SVP Trial as Remedy for Discovery Violation Constitutes Denial of Constitutional Due Process
Loaded on Aug. 15, 2022
by David Reutter
published in Criminal Legal News
September, 2022, page 30
Filed under:
Sexually Dangerous Persons/Sexual Violent Predators,
Expert Witnesses/Testimony,
Denial of Due Process.
Location:
California.
by David M. Reutter
The Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, concluded that a trial court erred by excluding the defense’s only expert witness from testify in a civil commitment proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator (“SVP”) Act, Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600, et seq., thereby denying ...
Full article and associated cases available to subscribers.
As a digital subscriber to Criminal Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
More from this issue:
- Speed Trap Gold Mine, by Jayson Hawkins
- Indirect DNA Transfer Can Result in Miscarriages of Justice, by David Reutter
- Manhattan DA Launches Conviction Review Unit, by Jayson Hawkins
- New Jersey Supreme Court Announces Framework for Determining Constitutionality of Warrantless Protective Sweep of Home Where Arrest Is Made Outside the Home, by Douglas Ankney
- SCOTUS Holds AEDPA’s Restrictions on Habeas Relief Trump Federal Courts’ Authority Under All Writs Act, by Dale Chappell
- FBI Gets New Mass Surveillance Tool, by Jayson Hawkins
- Federal Habeas Corpus: Taking an Appeal After the Denial of Habeas Relief, by Dale Chappell
- First Circuit Announces ‘Knowingly’ Violating § 922(g)(9) Requires Proof Defendant Knew He Belonged to Category of Persons Prohibited from Possessing Firearms, Mere Knowledge of ‘Features’ of Prior Offense Insufficient, by Richard Resch
- How Many Federal Crimes Are There?, by Casey Bastian
- Vaccine Passports Raise Privacy Issues and Create a Class of Undesirables, by David Reutter
- First Circuit: Procedurally Unreasonable for District Court to Base Upward Variance on Defendant’s Prior Arrests, by Douglas Ankney
- SCOTUS Holds Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery Not a ‘Crime of Violence’ Under a § 924(c)(3)(A), by Dale Chappell
- Outdated Wiretap Law Gives Feds Easy Access to Metadata, by Anthony Accurso
- Law Enforcement Refuse to Admit Most Forensic Science Is Junk Science, by Casey Bastian
- California Court of Appeal: Exclusion of Expert Witness at SVP Trial as Remedy for Discovery Violation Constitutes Denial of Constitutional Due Process, by David Reutter
- California Court of Appeal: Assembly Bill 124 Applies Retroactively and Includes Psychological Trauma Based Upon Mental Illness as Mitigating Factor Under § 1170(b)(6), by Harold Hempstead
- Sixth Circuit Announces Full, Unconditional Pardon, Regardless of Issue of Innocence, Meets Heck Requirement of Invalidated Conviction; § 1983 Claims May Be Pursued, by Harold Hempstead
- FBI Forces Suspect to Unlock Messaging App Using FaceID, by Anthony Accurso
- Colorado Supreme Court Announces Courts Not Required to Address All 11 Brown Factors in Ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Continuance to Change Counsel, by Harold Hempstead
- California Court of Appeal: New Law Requiring Bifurcated Trial on Gang Enhancements Applies Retroactively, by David Reutter
- New Jersey Supreme Court Announces ‘Non-Transparent’ for Purposes of Tinted Window Violation Justifying Traffic Stop Means Front Windows Dark Enough That Police Can’t Clearly See People or Items Inside Vehicle, by Anthony Accurso
- SCOTUS Announces Judge’s Error of Law Constitutes ‘Mistake’ for Purposes of Reopening a Case Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), by Dale Chappell
- Sixth Circuit: Government Cannot Withdraw Consent to Lesser Included Charge After Defendant Pleaded Guilty but Court Reject Plea Agreement, by David Reutter
- New Jersey Supreme Court: Defendant Did Not Voluntarily Waive Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Because Police Persistently Contradicted and Undermined Significance of Miranda During Interrogation, by Richard Resch
- Connecticut Supreme Court Announces Trial Courts, Prospectively, Must Canvass Defendants Who Seek to Waive Right to Testify to Ensure Waiver Is Made Knowingly, Intelligently, and Voluntarily, by Anthony Accurso
- Missouri Supreme Court: Defendant Entitled to ‘Castle Doctrine’ Jury Instruction Even Though Assailant Not Unlawfully in Vehicle at Very Moment of Use of Deadly Force, by Harold Hempstead
- Minnesota Supreme Court Announces Expanding Scope of Traffic Stop to Investigate Occupant’s Pretrial Release Conditions Violates Minnesota Constitution, by Douglas Ankney
- Sixth Circuit Reverses Denial of First Step Act Relief Because Sentence Imposed Is Substantively Unreasonable, by Douglas Ankney
- San Francisco DA’s Inaugural Innocence Commission Frees Its First Victim of Wrongful Conviction, by Keith Sanders
- Inextricably Intertwined: The Practice of Negotiated Pleas and the Rise of Mass Incarceration in America, by Casey Bastian
- News in Brief
- Use of Death Penalty Continues to Decline in the U.S., by Douglas Ankney
- $670,000 Awarded to Use Virtual Reality to Evaluate Eyewitness Accuracy, by Jacob Barrett
More from David Reutter:
- Help Wanted: 31,000 Prison Guard Jobs Open Nationwide, Sept. 1, 2025
- Fifth Circuit Greenlights Federal Takeover of Mississippi Jail, Aug. 1, 2025
- Ninth Circuit Revives Prisoner’s Claim Based on Guard’s Thwarting of Administrative Remedies, Aug. 1, 2025
- Tenth Circuit Ruling Paves Way for $2.7 Million Settlement for Intellectually Disabled Jail Detainee Raped by Sheriff, Aug. 1, 2025
- Ninth Circuit Agrees That Former Guantanamo Detainee Lacks Grounds to Sue for Waterboarding, Aug. 1, 2025
- Qualified Immunity Denied for Iowa Prison Doctor’s MRI Delay for Non-Medical Reasons, Aug. 1, 2025
- Ninth Circuit: Continuing-Violations Doctrine Applies for PLRA Administrative Exhaustion Purposes, Aug. 1, 2025
- First Circuit: Prosecutor’s Breach of Plea Agreement Requires Government’s Specific Performance of Agreement, Not Specific Performance by District Court, Aug. 1, 2025
- Oregon Prisoners Can Now Seek Economic Damages for Future Lost Income More Easily, July 15, 2025
- $22.5 Million Verdict Arrives Too Late for Wrongfully Convicted Illinois Prisoner, July 15, 2025
More from these topics:
- SCOTUS Clarifies It Had Already Been ‘Clearly Established Federal Law’ in 2004 for Purposes of AEDPA That Evidence at Trial Can Be So Prejudicial as to Violate Due Process, March 15, 2025. AEDPA, Denial of Due Process.
- Michigan Supreme Court: Fundamentally Unfair to Deny Indigent Defendant Funds to Retain False Confession Expert Where Genuineness of Confession Key Issue at Trial, Dec. 1, 2024. Expert Witnesses/Testimony, False Confessions, Indigent Defendants - Fees and Expenses.
- Crime Scene Context: Bridging the Gap Between Evidence and Reconstruction, April 15, 2024. Expert Witnesses, Expert Witnesses/Testimony.
- Ninth Circuit Revives Former Nevada Prisoner’s Claim for Deprivation of Sentence Credit, Nov. 15, 2023. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Credits, Denial of Due Process.
- Hawaii Supreme Court: Defendant’s Due Process Rights Violated by Prosecutor, Aug. 1, 2023. Self-Incrimination Clause, Denial of Due Process.
- $500,000 Settlement for Texas Man Wrongly Imprisoned for Child Sex Abuse, July 15, 2023. Settlements, Wrongful Conviction, Sexually Dangerous Persons/Sexual Violent Predators.
- Proactive Online Stings Do Little to Protect Children, May 15, 2023. Internet, Police State-Surveillance, Sexually Dangerous Persons/Sexual Violent Predators.
- Supervised Release and the Erosion of Due Process Protection, April 15, 2023. Electronic Monitoring, Probation, Parole & Supervised Release, Denial of Due Process.
- California Court of Appeal Announces the People Are Not Entitled to Have Privately Retained Psychological Expert Testify at Trial of SVPA Petition, Jan. 15, 2023. Expert Witnesses, Mental Health, Sexually Dangerous Persons/Sexual Violent Predators.
- Connecticut Supreme Court Rules That Prisoner Was Denied Due Process with Sex Offender Classification, May 1, 2022. Sex Offenders (Discrimination), Denial of Due Process.