The examination shall be open and public. However, upon the request of the defendant and a finding by the magistrate that exclusion of the public is necessary in order to protect the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial, the magistrate shall exclude from the examination every person except the clerk, court reporter and bailiff, the prosecutor and his or her counsel, the Attorney General, the district attorney of the county, the investigating officer, the officer having custody of a prisoner witness while the prisoner is testifying, the defendant and his or her counsel, the officer having the defendant in custody, and a person chosen by the prosecuting witness who is not himself or herself a witness but who is present to provide the prosecuting witness moral support, provided that the person so chosen shall not discuss prior to or during the preliminary examination the testimony of the prosecuting witness with any person, other than the prosecuting witness, who is a witness in the examination. Upon motion of the prosecution, members of the alleged victim’s family shall be entitled to be present and seated during the examination. The court shall grant the motion unless the magistrate finds that the exclusion is necessary to protect the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial, or unless information provided by the defendant or noticed by the court establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that the attendance of members of the alleged victim’s family poses a risk of affecting the content of the testimony of the victim or any other witness. The court shall admonish members of the alleged victim’s family who are present and seated during the examination not to discuss any testimony with family members, witnesses, or the public. Nothing in this section shall affect the exclusion of witnesses as provided in Section 867 of the Penal Code.
For purposes of this section, members of the alleged victim’s family shall include the alleged victim’s spouse, parents, legal guardian, children, or siblings.
Notes of Decisions
Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 478 U.S. 1 (1986).
· cites it 4× “Diaz moved to exclude the public from the proceedings under Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 868 (West 1985), which requires such proceedings to be *4 open unless "exclusion of the public is necessary in order to protect the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial.”
Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979).
· cites it 4× “42, §§ 17, 19 (1848); Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 868 (West Supp. 1979).”
Brian W. v. Superior Court, 574 P.2d 788 (Cal. 1978).
· cites it 2× “" (Pen. Code, § 868.) Those words imply no easy answer to the question raised here during oral argument, "Do we not come to the conclusion that adults get better protection than do children?" BIRD, C.”
Tribune Newspapers West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. App. 3d 443 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “" Penal Code section 868 enables the closing of a preliminary examination on request by the defendant based on a magistrate's finding "that exclusion of the public is necessary in order to protect the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial, .”
State v. Williams, 459 A.2d 641 (N.J. 1983).
“1962); Cal.Penal Code § 868 (West 1982); Ga.Code Ann.”
Ortega v. Superior Court, 135 Cal. App. 3d 244 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).
“” (Pen. Code, § 868.) Resolution of the question presented depends upon the meaning of the term “prosecuting witness” in this provision.”
People v. Malloy, 199 Cal. App. 2d 219 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962).
“” 4 Penal Code section 868 was amended by Stats.”
Younger v. Smith, 30 Cal. App. 3d 138 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973).
“(Pen. Code, § 868.) At the end of the examination Senff was held to answer on all counts.”
Eversole v. Superior Court, 148 Cal. App. 3d 188 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).
“However, upon the request of the defendant and a finding by the magistrate that exclusion of the public is necessary in order to protect the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial, the magistrate shall exclude from the examination every person except the clerk, court…”
People v. Hanson, 197 Cal. App. 2d 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961).
· cites it 2× “Defendant was held to answer on all charges. On November 4, 1960, the information was filed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.