neutral hearing in California

2016Neutral Hearing Officer The Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 requires that PRCS revocations "incorporate the procedural due process protections held to apply to probation revocation procedures under Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 , and People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451 , and their progeny." (Vol. 6 West's Cal. Legislative Service (Stats. 2012, ch. 43, § 2(b), p. 1969.) Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. 471 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ], delineates basic due process requirements for the revocation of parole, which includes the right to a probable cause hearing before a neutral hearing office

2016Neutral Hearing Officer The Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 requires that PRCS revocations "incorporate the procedural due process protections held to apply to probation revocation procedures under Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471 , and People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451 , and their progeny." (Vol. 6 West's Cal. Legislative Service (Stats. 2012, ch. 43, § 2(b), p. 1969.) Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. 471 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ], delineates basic due process requirements for the revocation of parole, which includes the right to a probable cause hearing before a neutral hearing office

2016(See *1017 Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 485 , 92 S.Ct. at p. 2602 , 33 L.Ed.2d at p. 497 [probable cause determination should be made by someone "not directly involved in the case"]; Williams, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 647 , 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 685 [same].) It was the functional equivalent of an arraignment and a probable cause ruling in superior court.

2016(See *1017 Morrissey, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 485 , 92 S.Ct. at p. 2602 , 33 L.Ed.2d at p. 497 [probable cause determination should be made by someone "not directly involved in the case"]; Williams, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 647 , 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 685 [same].) It was the functional equivalent of an arraignment and a probable cause ruling in superior court.

2014Where the minor has been declared a ward of the court under section 602, a notice may be filed by the probation officer or the prosecuting attorney alleging “a violation of a condition of probation not amounting to a crime” and must “contain a concise statement of facts sufficient to support this conclusion.” (§ 777, subd. (a)(2).) As a matter of due process, a probationer is entitled to “written notice of the claimed violations of his probation; disclosure of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; a neutral hearing bod

2012(See Black v. Romano (1985) 471 U.S. 606, 610 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 636 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 ]; People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1152-1153 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 ]; People v. Quarterman (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1294 [ 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 419 ].) Due process requires a probationer be given “written notice of the claimed violations of his probation; disclosure of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; a neutral hearing body; and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for

1989A probationer for whom revocation of probation is sought is entitled to certain procedural safeguards, including “written notice of the claimed violations of his probation; disclosure of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; a neutral hearing body; and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. [Citation.]” (Black v. Romano (1985) 471 U.S. 606, 612 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 636, 643 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 ], italics added, citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778, 786

1989A probationer for whom revocation of probation is sought is entitled to certain procedural safeguards, including “written notice of the claimed violations of his probation; disclosure of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; a neutral hearing body; and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. [Citation.]” (Black v. Romano (1985) 471 U.S. 606, 612 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 636, 643 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 ], italics added, citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778, 786

1968(Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1,8 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 653, 659 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 ].) Appropriate to the circumstances relating to the second statement made by the defendant in the case at bench is the *684 language of the court in People v. Treloar, 64 Cal.2d 141 , at page 147 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 100 , 410 P.2d 620 ] : “ [T]he questioning was initiated by defendant, and the statement was volunteered in resp'onse to a neutral inquiry invited by defendant’s own remarks; . . . the conduct of the police was neither intimidating nor accusatory, nor did it appear in any way designed to elicit incriminating statement

1968(Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1,8 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 653, 659 , 84 S.Ct. 1489 ].) Appropriate to the circumstances relating to the second statement made by the defendant in the case at bench is the *684 language of the court in People v. Treloar, 64 Cal.2d 141 , at page 147 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 100 , 410 P.2d 620 ] : “ [T]he questioning was initiated by defendant, and the statement was volunteered in resp'onse to a neutral inquiry invited by defendant’s own remarks; . . . the conduct of the police was neither intimidating nor accusatory, nor did it appear in any way designed to elicit incriminating statement

2012(See Black v. Romano (1985) 471 U.S. 606, 610 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 636 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 ]; People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1152-1153 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 ]; People v. Quarterman (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1294 [ 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 419 ].) Due process requires a probationer be given “written notice of the claimed violations of his probation; disclosure of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; a neutral hearing body; and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for

2012(See Black v. Romano (1985) 471 U.S. 606, 610 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 636 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 ]; People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1152-1153 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 ]; People v. Quarterman (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1294 [ 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 419 ].) Due process requires a probationer be given “written notice of the claimed violations of his probation; disclosure of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; a neutral hearing body; and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for

1994This court adopted Castellanos's reasoning concerning the hearsay rule and added that “[p]erhaps equally important, ‘[t]he main reasons for excluding hearsay evidence are: “(a) The statements are not made under *1703 oath; (b) the adverse party has no opportunity to cross-examine the person who made them; and (c) the jury cannot observe his demeanor while making them.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] Given that statements made during a preliminary hearing are made under oath and are subject to cross-examination, we conclude defendant is afforded adequate protection from the dangers of out-of-court s

1990The court reasoned that “[b]ecause the preliminary hearing transcript testimony and other relevant court documents, albeit hearsay, are not being offered against the defendant in the traditional sense, but are merely being offered for the neutral inquiry as to the nature of the earlier offense, i.e., to explain the defendant’s conduct which comprised the crime he admitted to have suffered in the earlier proceeding, they are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule to explain *616 his admissions. [Citation.]” (Id., at p. 1174.) Perhaps equally important, “[t]he main reasons for excluding he

1974The outpatient is entitled to (1) written notice of the claimed violations of his release; (2) disclosure of evidence against him; (3) the opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (5) a neutral hearing body such as the NAEA or a hearing officer or officers selected by the NAEA; and (6) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking outpatient status. 14 In

1974The outpatient is entitled to (1) written notice of the claimed violations of his release; (2) disclosure of evidence against him; (3) the opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (5) a neutral hearing body such as the NAEA or a hearing officer or officers selected by the NAEA; and (6) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking outpatient status. 14 In

2026(See Carlucci, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 256 .) Essentially, Chi is complaining that the administrative hearing does not follow the adversarial trial model, where the advocates introduce evidence and a judge rules on objections.

2026(See Carlucci, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 256 .) Essentially, Chi is complaining that the administrative hearing does not follow the adversarial trial model, where the advocates introduce evidence and a judge rules on objections.

2026(See Nieves, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 498 .) Assigning both tasks to a neutral hearing officer does not incentivize the officer to favor the department.

2026(See Nieves, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 498 .) Assigning both tasks to a neutral hearing officer does not incentivize the officer to favor the department.

2012(See Black v. Romano (1985) 471 U.S. 606, 610 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 636 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 ]; People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1152-1153 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 ]; People v. Quarterman (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1294 [ 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 419 ].) Due process requires a probationer be given “written notice of the claimed violations of his probation; disclosure of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; a neutral hearing body; and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for

2012(See Black v. Romano (1985) 471 U.S. 606, 610 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 636 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 ]; People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1152-1153 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 ]; People v. Quarterman (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1294 [ 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 419 ].) Due process requires a probationer be given “written notice of the claimed violations of his probation; disclosure of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; a neutral hearing body; and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for

1970(Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 477-478 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 725-726 ]; People v. Mercer, 257 Cal.App.2d 244, 247-249 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 861 ]; People v. Hazel, 252 Cal.App.2d 412, 417-418 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 437 ]; see People v. Sanchez, 65 Cal.2d 814, 823-824 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 648 , 423 P.2d 800 ]; People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 328 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ].) Accordingly, the response “I did it and I’m sorry” to this neutral inquiry was admissible because defendant was not then in custody, the investigation had not focused on him as an accused, and the inquiry was not such as to co

1970(Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 477-478 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 725-726 ]; People v. Mercer, 257 Cal.App.2d 244, 247-249 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 861 ]; People v. Hazel, 252 Cal.App.2d 412, 417-418 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 437 ]; see People v. Sanchez, 65 Cal.2d 814, 823-824 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 648 , 423 P.2d 800 ]; People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 328 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ].) Accordingly, the response “I did it and I’m sorry” to this neutral inquiry was admissible because defendant was not then in custody, the investigation had not focused on him as an accused, and the inquiry was not such as to co

1970(Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 477-478 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 725-726 ]; People v. Mercer, 257 Cal.App.2d 244, 247-249 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 861 ]; People v. Hazel, 252 Cal.App.2d 412, 417-418 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 437 ]; see People v. Sanchez, 65 Cal.2d 814, 823-824 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 648 , 423 P.2d 800 ]; People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 328 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ].) Accordingly, the response “I did it and I’m sorry” to this neutral inquiry was admissible because defendant was not then in custody, the investigation had not focused on him as an accused, and the inquiry was not such as to co

1970(Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 477-478 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 725-726 ]; People v. Mercer, 257 Cal.App.2d 244, 247-249 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 861 ]; People v. Hazel, 252 Cal.App.2d 412, 417-418 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 437 ]; see People v. Sanchez, 65 Cal.2d 814, 823-824 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 648 , 423 P.2d 800 ]; People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 328 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ].) Accordingly, the response “I did it and I’m sorry” to this neutral inquiry was admissible because defendant was not then in custody, the investigation had not focused on him as an accused, and the inquiry was not such as to co

2023(People v. Wood (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d Supp. 11, 15 [“‘It is error to give an instruction which correctly states a principle of law which has no application to the facts of the case’”].) There is no bracketed portion of CALCRIM No. 2100 (or any other pattern jury instruction) that references the presumption that operates against the prosecution (BAC of less than .05 percent) or the neutral presumption (BAC of from .05 to less than .08 percent).

2014In doing so it ratified a principle that had been part of California law since at least 1919 (see People v. Sing, supra, 42 Cal.App. 385, 395-396 ) and that reflects the great weight of authority elsewhere (see Annot., Series of Takings Over a Period of Time as Involving Single or Separate Larcenies (1973) 53 A.L.R.3d 398 ; People v. Cox (1941) 36 N.E.2d 84, 86 [ 286 N.Y. 137, 143 ] [―The same rule applies in England . . . .‖].).

2014In doing so it ratified a principle that had been part of California law since at least 1919 (see People v. Sing, supra, 42 Cal.App. 385, 395-396 ) and that reflects the great weight of authority elsewhere (see Annot., Series of Takings Over a Period of Time as Involving Single or Separate Larcenies (1973) 53 A.L.R.3d 398 ; People v. Cox (1941) 36 N.E.2d 84, 86 [ 286 N.Y. 137, 143 ] [―The same rule applies in England . . . .‖].).

2009Luke's United Methodist Church (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 754, 769 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 442 ].) If a neutral principle of law approach were applied here, the Episcopal Church might well lose because the 1950 deed to the disputed property is in the name of St.

2009Luke's United Methodist Church (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 754, 769 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 442 ].) If a neutral principle of law approach were applied here, the Episcopal Church might well lose because the 1950 deed to the disputed property is in the name of St.