express personal waiver in California

2023(See People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1292, fn. 27 [“Defendant did not assert his right to a public trial below, so the trial court had no occasion to consider it.

2014Unlike the jury trial which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1237 ; see also People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1292, fn. 27 [defendant forfeited right to public trial by failing to assert error below].) In any event, Russell’s claim has no merit.

1989We refuse to adopt the practice here for several reasons. (5) In a criminal proceeding, an express personal waiver is required for the constitutional rights inherent in a plea of guilty and the waiver of jury trial, including the right to confrontation, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to present a defense. ( People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 935-936 [ 248 Cal. Rptr. 467 , 755 P.2d 917 ].) The California Supreme Court has deemed this rule necessary because under the federal Constitution a defendant's plea of guilty to a criminal charge is only valid if it is voluntarily

1989We refuse to adopt the practice here for several reasons. (5) In a criminal proceeding, an express personal waiver is required for the constitutional rights inherent in a plea of guilty and the waiver of jury trial, including the right to confrontation, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to present a defense. ( People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 935-936 [ 248 Cal. Rptr. 467 , 755 P.2d 917 ].) The California Supreme Court has deemed this rule necessary because under the federal Constitution a defendant's plea of guilty to a criminal charge is only valid if it is voluntarily

2023Unlike the jury trial right which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.” [Citations.]’” (People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1237 ; accord, People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 161 .) And here, defense counsel did not object to the court’s order excluding defendant’s sister from the remainder of trial on the ground the order violated defendant’s right to a public trial; thus, his claim is forfeited.

2021Unlike the jury trial right which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.” ’ ” ( Virgil at p. 1237 [jurors questioned at sidebar].) “Defendant did not assert his right to a public trial below, so the trial court had no occasion to consider it.

2011Unlike the jury trial right which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 813 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696 , 819 P.2d 436 ], italics omitted.) This late-raised argument also fails on the merits.

2011Unlike the jury trial right which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 813 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696 , 819 P.2d 436 ], italics omitted.) This late-raised argument also fails on the merits.

2021(In re Monique T. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1377 .) We review the juvenile court’s failure to obtain a waiver for harmless error.

2014INTRODUCTION At a jurisdictional proceeding, “the court must advise the parents of their due process rights to a hearing and must obtain an express personal waiver of those rights if the hearing is to proceed without further evidence.” (In re Monique T. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1374 (Monique T.).

2023Unlike the jury trial right which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.” [Citations.]’” (People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1237 ; accord, People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 161 .) And here, defense counsel did not object to the court’s order excluding defendant’s sister from the remainder of trial on the ground the order violated defendant’s right to a public trial; thus, his claim is forfeited.

2023Unlike the jury trial right which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.” [Citations.]’ [Citation, italics omitted.]” (Ibid.; People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 917 [“ ‘ “The right to public trial may be 28 waived [citation], the waiver may be implied from failure to object [citations], and the waiver may be made by defense counsel on defendant’s behalf.” ’ ”].) 3.

2015We do not give plenary attention to this claim (People v. Elder (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315, fn. 9 ), and thus observe only that the facts do not support an assertion of this excuse. 8 Cowan involved a defendant who wanted to enter an express personal waiver of the statute of limitations in order to enter a plea to a lesser offense.

2015(People v. Mata (2013) 57 Cal.4th 178, 185 [consent should be implied when party fails to object and continues to participate in proceeding challenged on appeal (there, reseating an improperly challenged juror)].) Defendant is also incorrect that trial counsel’s action or inaction cannot forfeit his rights; requesting a mistrial, or choosing whether or not to continue with a particular juror or jury, are not among the constitutional rights we deem to be so fundamental that a defendant’s express personal waiver of these is necessary.

2006(People v. Freeman, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 485 .) In our view, the weighing of the possible prejudice of presenting the prior murder conviction at the guilt phase against the possible prejudice of the jury’s hearing of it for the first time thereafter (Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 150) is a quintessential question of evidentiary strategy and thus, at least in the absence of an express conflict that comes to the attention of the trial judge, certainly within the attorney’s “general authority to control the procedural aspects of the litigation and, indeed, to bind the client in these matters.

2003But, as the Attorney General suggests, such a requirement risks infringing upon trial counsel’s authority, as “ ‘captain of the ship,’ ” to “make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant.” (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 376 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 935 P.2d *1228 708].) Finally, on this record we find no merit in defendant’s suggestion that, absent instruction on the elements of robbery and attempted murder, the jury in this case had no principled way to determine whether the alleged offenses were criminal or involved force or violence.

2003But, as the Attorney General suggests, such a requirement risks infringing upon trial counsel’s authority, as “ ‘captain of the ship,’ ” to “make all but a few fundamental decisions for the defendant.” (People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 376 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 935 P.2d *1228 708].) Finally, on this record we find no merit in defendant’s suggestion that, absent instruction on the elements of robbery and attempted murder, the jury in this case had no principled way to determine whether the alleged offenses were criminal or involved force or violence.

2001(In re Horton, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 95 .) For example, in People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1052 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225 , 929 P.2d 544 ], the Supreme Court ruled a trial court has no duty “to sua sponte inform [a defendant] of his right to testify and to obtain an express personal waiver of that right.” One factor distinguishing the right to a jury trial from the right to testify is the absence of a provision in the California Constitution requiring an express personal waiver of the right to testify.

2001(In re Horton, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 95 .) For example, in People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1052 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225 , 929 P.2d 544 ], the Supreme Court ruled a trial court has no duty “to sua sponte inform [a defendant] of his right to testify and to obtain an express personal waiver of that right.” One factor distinguishing the right to a jury trial from the right to testify is the absence of a provision in the California Constitution requiring an express personal waiver of the right to testify.

1999First, he contends that express, personal waivers of his constitutional rights to silence, jury trial, and confrontation and cross-examination, were required in accordance with Boykin-Tahl 2 before the court accepted his stipulation and cites People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 616 P.2d 826 ], disapproved in People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 478 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 847 , 807 P.2d 1076 ] on another ground, and People v. Turner (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 658 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 614 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 411 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 684

1999First, he contends that express, personal waivers of his constitutional rights to silence, jury trial, and confrontation and cross-examination, were required in accordance with Boykin-Tahl 2 before the court accepted his stipulation and cites People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 616 P.2d 826 ], disapproved in People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 478 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 847 , 807 P.2d 1076 ] on another ground, and People v. Turner (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 658 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 614 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 411 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 684

1999First, he contends that express, personal waivers of his constitutional rights to silence, jury trial, and confrontation and cross-examination, were required in accordance with Boykin-Tahl 2 before the court accepted his stipulation and cites People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 616 P.2d 826 ], disapproved in People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 478 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 847 , 807 P.2d 1076 ] on another ground, and People v. Turner (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 658 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 614 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 411 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 684

1999First, he contends that express, personal waivers of his constitutional rights to silence, jury trial, and confrontation and cross-examination, were required in accordance with Boykin-Tahl 2 before the court accepted his stipulation and cites People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 616 P.2d 826 ], disapproved in People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 478 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 847 , 807 P.2d 1076 ] on another ground, and People v. Turner (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 658 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 614 ], disapproved on another ground in People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 411 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 684

1991Unlike the jury trial right which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.” (5 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1989) Trial, § 2618, p. 3137, italics in original; see also People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1309 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 756 P.2d 221 ] [defense request for private Hovey voir dire waives right to public voir dire; no personal waiver necessary].) This result is consistent with Press-Enterprise, supra, 464 U.S. 501 , where the press won the

1991Unlike the jury trial right which requires an express personal waiver [citation], the constitutional guarantee of a public trial may be waived by acquiescence of the defendant in an order of exclusion.” (5 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1989) Trial, § 2618, p. 3137, italics in original; see also People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1309 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 834 , 756 P.2d 221 ] [defense request for private Hovey voir dire waives right to public voir dire; no personal waiver necessary].) This result is consistent with Press-Enterprise, supra, 464 U.S. 501 , where the press won the