extensive analysis in California

2022(Id. at pp. 1244-1245, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 248 .) In People v Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687 , the court held an extensive hearing in which a juror steadfastly maintained that she could not follow the court’s instructions, that she had been upset throughout the trial and that she wanted to be excused.

2002"The extensive hearing in which the juror steadfastly maintained that she could not follow the court's instructions, that she had been upset throughout the trial and that she wanted to be excused, clearly justified a conclusion that she could not perform her duty and thus established good cause for her discharge." ( Id. at p. 696, 131 Cal.Rptr. 782 , 552 P.2d 742 .) As a result of its conclusion that good cause existed, the court did not address "[defendant's contention that he was placed twice in jeopardy by the substitution of an alternate juror without legal necessity or his consent....

2016(Kehoe, at pp. 650, 654.) Kehoe nonetheless ordered the documents disclosed on the basis of a “special basis for disclosure” raised by the plaintiffs—that the Bureau “routinely discloses complaints to the affected collection agencies.” (Kehoe, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 655 .) As the court explained: “The defendant state agencies assert authority to give collection agencies access to citizens’ complaints and to deny access to plaintiffs.

2015(Kehoe, at pp. 650, 654.) Kehoe nonetheless ordered the documents disclosed on the basis of a “special basis for disclosure” raised by the plaintiffs — that the Bureau “routinely discloses complaints to the affected collection agencies.” (Kehoe, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 655 .) As the court explained: “The defendant state agencies assert authority to give collection agencies access to citizens’ complaints and to deny access to plaintiffs.

2025(People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 334 .) After conducting an extensive inquiry of the jurors, the court further admonished them to not research or discuss the case and to keep an open mind.

2022(Jackson, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 334 .) After conducting an extensive inquiry of the jurors, the court further admonished them to not research or discuss the case and to keep an open mind.

2023(People v. Zaragoza (2016) 1 Cal.5th 21, 59 .) Forfeiture aside, we see no abuse of discretion.

2023(People v. Zaragoza (2016) 1 Cal.5th 21, 59 .) Further, the claim it is forfeited because it is a conclusory contention unsupported by meaningful legal analysis.

2022(Henderson, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 1022 .) Second, although Patterson should not have contacted defendant to request an interview, he did not ask further questions after defendant invoked his right to counsel.

2022(Henderson, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 1022 .) Second, although Patterson should not have contacted defendant to request an interview, he did not ask further questions after defendant invoked his right to counsel.

2022(See People v. Orloff (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 947, 957 .) “If defendant believed a more extensive instruction was needed, it was his burden to request one.” (People v. Chhuon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 33 .) Ramos argues the 2009 incident was “extremely remote” and cumulative.4 In support, he relies upon People v. Leon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 149 .

2022(See People v. Orloff (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 947, 957 .) “If defendant believed a more extensive instruction was needed, it was his burden to request one.” (People v. Chhuon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 33 .) Ramos argues the 2009 incident was “extremely remote” and cumulative. 4 In support, he relies upon People v. Leon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 149 .

2022(See People v. Orloff (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 947, 957 .) “If defendant believed a more extensive instruction was needed, it was his burden to request one.” (People v. Chhuon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 33 .) Ramos argues the 2009 incident was “extremely remote” and cumulative.4 In support, he relies upon People v. Leon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 149 .

2022(See People v. Orloff (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 947, 957 .) “If defendant believed a more extensive instruction was needed, it was his burden to request one.” (People v. Chhuon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 33 .) Ramos argues the 2009 incident was “extremely remote” and cumulative. 4 In support, he relies upon People v. Leon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 149 .

2022(See People v. Orloff (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 947, 957 .) “If defendant believed a more extensive instruction was needed, it was his burden to request one.” (People v. Chhuon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 33 .) Ramos argues the 2009 incident was “extremely remote” and cumulative.4 In support, he relies upon People v. Leon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 149 .

2022(See People v. Orloff (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 947, 957 .) “If defendant believed a more extensive instruction was needed, it was his burden to request one.” (People v. Chhuon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 33 .) Ramos argues the 2009 incident was “extremely remote” and cumulative. 4 In support, he relies upon People v. Leon (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 149 .

2016(Cf. Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 485 .) It should also be noted that, because an inquiry into church polity is required, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to make an independent finding on the question of whether a diocese can unilaterally leave the Episcopal Church. c.

2016(Cf. Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 485 .) It should also be noted that, because an inquiry into church polity is required, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to make *270 an independent finding on the question of whether a diocese can unilaterally leave the Episcopal Church. c.

1991The court indicated “. . . it is the court’s duty to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary to determine if the juror should be discharged and whether the impartiality of the other jurors has been affected.” (Id. at p. 839.) The court’s failure to hold a more extensive hearing, as was required by section 1120, was determined to be reversible error under the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. ( 90 Cal.App.3d at p. 846 .) In Burgener , the court concluded that, even in the absence of a statutory mandate such as section 1120, requiring that a hearing be held, an inquiry “. . .

1991In McNeal , the trial court received a note from a juror indicating the juror had personal knowledge about the case which “. . . definitely had a bearing on the way she will vote.” ( 90 Cal.App.3d at p. 835 .) The trial court made a cursory inquiry of the juror, and the appellate court reversed holding that section 1120 mandated a more extensive inquiry. 4 (Id. at p. 837.) In Burgener , the jury foreman informed the trial court in chambers that one of the jurors had been intoxicated on the previous day and was presently *1480 intoxicated as well.

2026(Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 603 .) The Supreme Court noted “the complaint alleged that ‘defendants breached the contract by failing to provide for the premises to be without structural defect and roof leakage; failing to replace chimney caps; failing to install downspout; failing to repair broken front door lock; failing to complete work recommended by Dudley Termite report, including the second inspection; and all the work necessary for energy conservation ordinance clearance including the repair of the windows.’ ” (Id. at p. 615.) The Supreme Court engaged in this extensive analysis t

2025(See Cleveland, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 476, 480.) The court also could have spoken first to Juror No. 5 before questioning the other jurors because Juror No. 5 may have been in the best position to respond to the accusations against him.

2025The evidence was more than “minimally relevant” to motive, intent, and identity. “ ‘ “The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends ‘ “logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference” to establish material facts such as identity, intent, or 23 motive.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1058 .) Austin directly put identity at issue by denying his presence at the scene.

2024(In re Manriquez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 785, 818 [“Although it was misconduct for Juror C.B. not to answer the pretrial juror questionnaire accurately, there is no substantial likelihood she was actually biased against petitioner.” (Italics added.)]; People v. Green (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1001 , 1019–1020 [finding the presumption of prejudice rebutted because “the trial court expressly found after an extensive inquiry that [the ineligible juror] had no actual bias against defendant”].) 42 Bias does not necessarily mean bias for or against a particular party.

2024(If anything, something close to the reverse is true—Williamson assisted Thannhaeuser in hiring Kitson.) The Ninth Circuit found that “Birbrower suggested that fees would have been awarded for the practice of law engaged in California by the out-of-state members of the firm if a ‘firm attorney engaged in that practice was an active member of the California State Bar.’ ” (Winterrowd, supra, 556 F.3d at p. 822 .) The full statement in Birbrower reads: “Birbrower engaged in unauthorized law practice in California on more than a limited basis, and no firm attorney engaged in that practice was an 1

2024(If anything, something close to the reverse is true—Williamson assisted Thannhaeuser in hiring Kitson.) The Ninth Circuit found that “Birbrower suggested that fees would have been awarded for the practice of law engaged in California by the out-of-state members of the firm if a ‘firm attorney engaged in that practice was an active member of the California State Bar.’ ” (Winterrowd, supra, 556 F.3d at p. 822 .) The full statement in Birbrower reads: “Birbrower engaged in unauthorized law practice in California on more than a limited basis, and no firm attorney engaged in that practice was an 1

2023If the managing spouse fails to meet this burden, the court should charge the managing spouse with the assets according to the prima facie showing.” (Margulis, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1267 .) Applying these rules, the Margulis court held that the husband, as the managing spouse, had a “duty to account for his postseparation management of” missing funds, and thus the burden shifted to him to prove they were properly used. ( Margulis, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1266-1267, 1280.) The Margulis court therefore reversed because of the family court’s “erroneous placement of the burden of proo

2023If the managing spouse fails to meet this burden, the court should charge the managing spouse with the assets according to the prima facie showing.” (Margulis, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1267 .) Applying these rules, the Margulis court held that the husband, as the managing spouse, had a “duty to account for his postseparation management of” missing funds, and thus the burden shifted to him to prove they were properly used. ( Margulis, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1266-1267, 1280.) The Margulis court therefore reversed because of the family court’s “erroneous placement of the burden of proo

2022Lexis 281, at *15] [“the extensive inquiry requirements under section 224.2 presume that a parent’s declaration on the ICWA-020 form, reliable or not, is not enough and that the child protective agency must do more than look at the form”]; In re Y.W., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 556 [“the point of the statutory requirement that the social worker ask all relevant individuals whether a child is or may be an Indian child” is “to obtain information the parent may not have”].) Further, the maternal grandmother’s uncertainty as to which tribe the family belonged to and her mention of a tribe that wa

2022(Id. at pp. 1244-1245, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229, 248 .) In People v Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687 , the court held an extensive hearing in which a juror steadfastly maintained that she could not follow the court’s instructions, that she had been upset throughout the trial and that she wanted to be excused.