closed hearing in California

2025The court held a closed hearing, pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 , at which defendant listed issues with counsel’s representation.

2025Upon arrival, Officer Bates cut off P.L.’s 2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 . 3 The court also denied defendant’s second motion for a Marsden hearing after a closed hearing, just before sentencing. 3. clothing and observed a single gunshot wound to his chest.

2016Finally, Terence argues the family court applied the wrong legal standard to his motion: that the court's finding above—that Terence did not specify what particularized issues would be covered or that a closed hearing was necessary in the interest of justice— is "at odds with established case law." According to Terence, it is "well-settled that persons invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination cannot be required to state the precise hazards that they fear, as doing so could compel them to surrender such rights." Terence relies on Hoffman v. U.S. (1951) 341 U.S. 479 and Bla

2015Finally, Terence argues the family court applied the wrong legal standard to his motion: that the court's finding above—that Terence did not specify what particularized issues would be covered or that a closed hearing was necessary in the interest of justice— is "at odds with established case law." According to Terence, it is "well-settled that persons invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination cannot be required to state the precise hazards that they fear, as doing so could compel them to surrender such rights." Terence relies on Hoffman v. U.S. (1951) 341 U.S. 479 and Bla

2016It 13 is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, [citation], and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.' " (Hoffman v. U.S., supra, 341 U.S. at p. 486 , italics added; see also People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 304 ; People v. Ford (1988) 45 Cal.3d 431, 441 ; Blackburn v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 427-428.) " 'To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be

2015It 13 is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, [citation], and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.' " (Hoffman v. U.S., supra, 341 U.S. at p. 486 , italics added; see also People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 304 ; People v. Ford (1988) 45 Cal.3d 431, 441 ; Blackburn v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 427-428.) " 'To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be

2016It 13 is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, [citation], and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.' " (Hoffman v. U.S., supra, 341 U.S. at p. 486 , italics added; see also People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 304 ; People v. Ford (1988) 45 Cal.3d 431, 441 ; Blackburn v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 427-428.) " 'To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be

2015It 13 is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, [citation], and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.' " (Hoffman v. U.S., supra, 341 U.S. at p. 486 , italics added; see also People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 304 ; People v. Ford (1988) 45 Cal.3d 431, 441 ; Blackburn v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at pp. 427-428.) " 'To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be

2016Finally, Terence argues the family court applied the wrong legal standard to his motion: that the court's finding above—that Terence did not specify what particularized issues would be covered or that a closed hearing was necessary in the interest of justice— is "at odds with established case law." According to Terence, it is "well-settled that persons invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination cannot be required to state the precise hazards that they fear, as doing so could compel them to surrender such rights." Terence relies on Hoffman v. U.S. (1951) 341 U.S. 479 and Bla

2015Finally, Terence argues the family court applied the wrong legal standard to his motion: that the court's finding above—that Terence did not specify what particularized issues would be covered or that a closed hearing was necessary in the interest of justice— is "at odds with established case law." According to Terence, it is "well-settled that persons invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination cannot be required to state the precise hazards that they fear, as doing so could compel them to surrender such rights." Terence relies on Hoffman v. U.S. (1951) 341 U.S. 479 and Bla

2016(See Dickey, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 922 .) For example, Klepper's testimony was not only speculative, it was also proven demonstrably false by the surveillance video, which showed the shooting occurred before anyone in Kuaea's group left to retrieve a weapon.

2016(People v. Brown (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 207, 214 ; People v. Garcia (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1369, 1374-1375 .) If a defendant believes he or she is not receiving effective assistance from counsel, the defendant may move to have counsel discharged and new counsel appointed. ( Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp. 123, 125; Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 694-695.) When a defendant makes that motion, the trial court must hold a closed hearing and give the defendant an opportunity to explain the reasons for his or her request for new counsel.

2016Moreover, “ ‘It is the general rule for error under [California] law’ … ‘that reversal requires prejudice and prejudice in turn requires a reasonable probability of an effect on the outcome’ under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 .” (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 216 .) Ligons does not allege or discuss how the failure to conduct a confidential hearing on her request for appointment of new counsel prejudiced her.

2016(People v. Brown (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 207, 214 ; People v. Garcia (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1369, 1374-1375 .) If a defendant believes he or she is not receiving effective assistance from counsel, the defendant may move to have counsel discharged and new counsel appointed. ( Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp. 123, 125; Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 694-695.) When a defendant makes that motion, the trial court must hold a closed hearing and give the defendant an opportunity to explain the reasons for his or her request for new counsel.

2016And, even with the recently amended information, defense counsel represented to the court that he had had sufficient time to prepare for trial. 10 People v. Turner (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 913 is instructive.

2016In the absence of a request, the trial court should exclude the district attorney whenever information would be presented during the hearing to which the district attorney is not entitled, or which could conceivably lighten the prosecution’s burden of proving its case.” (People v. Madrid (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 14, 19 .) Defense counsel did not request a closed hearing on Ligons’s request for appointment of new counsel.

2016The bar was sufficiently “secured” from the rest of the hotel lobby that it was “similar in nature to the stand-alone structures enumerated in section 459.” (Garcia, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1120 .) There were enough obstacles to gaining entrance to the bar when it was closed, and objective indications of a separately secured space, that Baldwin’s unauthorized access to the bar with the intent to commit theft was second degree burglary, not shoplifting.

2016(People v. Brown (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 207, 214 ; People v. Garcia (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1369, 1374-1375 .) If a defendant believes he or she is not receiving effective assistance from counsel, the defendant may move to have counsel discharged and new counsel appointed. ( Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp. 123, 125; Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 694-695.) When a defendant makes that motion, the trial court must hold a closed hearing and give the defendant an opportunity to explain the reasons for his or her request for new counsel.

2016Moreover, “ ‘It is the general rule for error under [California] law’ … ‘that reversal requires prejudice and prejudice in turn requires a reasonable probability of an effect on the outcome’ under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 .” (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 216 .) Ligons does not allege or discuss how the failure to conduct a confidential hearing on her request for appointment of new counsel prejudiced her.

2015Citing In re A.M. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 914 , the court found that permitting Steven B. to represent himself “would impair his own children’s right to a prompt resolution of all issues and would be unduly disruptive of the proceedings.” The court also found that Steven B. was not competent to represent himself in the matter and had received “more than adequate representation by his present counsel.” After a brief discussion with all counsel again present, the court 3 At least one of these continuances resulted from Steven B.’s inability to attend because of his incarceration.

2015(People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1245, 1246 [overruled on other grounds in People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 835 ].) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2013Our high court summarized the Supreme Court’s decision as follows: “Chief Justice Burger’s seven-to-two opinion for the court first addressed the ‘two *428 complementary considerations’ of (i) history—i.e., whether there is a ‘tradition of accessibility’ concerning preliminary hearings, and (ii) utility—i.e., whether ‘public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of [preliminary hearings].’ [Citation.] . . . [T]he court found a ‘near uniform’ practice of open preliminary hearings in this country from the 19th century to the present. [Citation.] Turning to the utility quest

2008(Copley Press, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 1279 .) The Court of Appeal in that case had ordered the commission to disclose the requested records, including the name of the officer, redacted only to exclude certain documents in the personnel file maintained by the officer’s “employing agency,” as that term is used in section 832.8, and oral testimony recited from those documents.

2003Oklahoma Publishing's petition for a writ to quash the order was denied by the Oklahoma Supreme Court on the basis that Oklahoma law required juvenile proceedings be held in private unless ordered open by the trial court. ( Id. at pp. 308-309, 97 S.Ct. 1045 .) The United States Supreme Court reversed.

1999(Id. at p. 1509.) The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the trial court should have suspended proceedings and appointed substitute counsel, who "would have undoubtedly pointed out to the court that the defendant was not responsible for [his attorney's] failure to file a timely motion for a substitution [of counsel] or to prepare for trial." (Id. at p. 1511.) In U.S. v. Gonzalez (9th Cir.1997) 113 F.3d 1026, 1029 , the Ninth Circuit held the district court created a conflict between the client and his appointed counsel when the court considered the request for substitution during the client'