does not mean defense in California

2019They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime ... [, while d]efense *308 counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth." ( United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218 , 256, 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (conc. & dis. opn. of White, J.) ( Wade ).) *515 Obviously, this does not mean defense counsel is licensed to put forward false facts or tell "half-truth[s]" ( U.S. v. Nobles (1975) 422 U.S. 225 , 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 ), but what it does mean is that the def

2019They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime ... [, while d]efense *308 counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth." ( United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218 , 256, 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (conc. & dis. opn. of White, J.) ( Wade ).) *515 Obviously, this does not mean defense counsel is licensed to put forward false facts or tell "half-truth[s]" ( U.S. v. Nobles (1975) 422 U.S. 225 , 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 ), but what it does mean is that the def

2019They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime ... [, while d]efense *308 counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth." ( United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218 , 256, 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (conc. & dis. opn. of White, J.) ( Wade ).) *515 Obviously, this does not mean defense counsel is licensed to put forward false facts or tell "half-truth[s]" ( U.S. v. Nobles (1975) 422 U.S. 225 , 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 ), but what it does mean is that the def

2019They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime ... [, while d]efense *308 counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth." ( United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218 , 256, 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (conc. & dis. opn. of White, J.) ( Wade ).) *515 Obviously, this does not mean defense counsel is licensed to put forward false facts or tell "half-truth[s]" ( U.S. v. Nobles (1975) 422 U.S. 225 , 241, 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 ), but what it does mean is that the def

2025Even if Devorah had been diagnosed with a mental or psychological condition, it is “a fact of modern life that many people experience emotional problems, undergo therapy, and take medications for their conditions. ‘A person’s credibility is not in question merely because he or she is receiving treatment for a mental health problem.’ ” (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 579 ; Susan S. v. Israels (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1297 [“although a witness’s credibility is always in issue, this does not mean the defense is entitled to rummage through the medical records of every witness in a cr

2021Rather, it means that, in order to establish liability, Street needed to identify how “the manner of performing the task ultimately cause[d] actionable harm.” (Bixby, supra, 748 F.Supp.2d at p. 1242 .) Otherwise, Street’s lawsuit against defendants would be premised simply on the fact that a demolition took place, in which case it would be proper to view defendants as carrying out the City’s instructions and for immunity to 6 extend to them.

2020First, the principle was adopted “as a bulwark against tyranny.” (United States v. Brown (1965) 381 U.S. 437, 443 .) “‘The Framers recognized that, in the long term, structural protections against abuse of power were critical to preserving liberty.’ [Citation.]” (Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ [ 207 L.Ed.2d 494, 517 ].) However, this does not mean the principle may be ignored when a branch of government abuses its power in favor of an individual.

2020First, the principle was adopted “as a bulwark against tyranny.” (United States v. Brown (1965) 381 U.S. 437, 443 .) “‘The Framers recognized that, in the long term, structural protections against abuse of power were critical to preserving liberty.’ [Citation.]” (Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ [ 207 L.Ed.2d 494, 517 ].) However, this does not mean the principle may be ignored when a branch of government abuses its power in favor of an individual.

2019Chapter 10 "creates a nearly symmetrical scheme of discovery ..., with any imbalance favoring the defendant as required by reciprocity under the due process clause." ( Izazaga , supra , 54 Cal.3d at p. 377 , 285 Cal.Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 , italics added.) For the defense, unless a claimed item of discovery falls within the express terms of section 1054.3, "there is no statutory or constitutional duty on the part of the defendant to disclose anything to the prosecution." ( Andrade v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1609 , 1613, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ( Andrade ).) "This result is unavoidabl

2019Chapter 10 "creates a nearly symmetrical scheme of discovery ..., with any imbalance favoring the defendant as required by reciprocity under the due process clause." ( Izazaga , supra , 54 Cal.3d at p. 377 , 285 Cal.Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 , italics added.) For the defense, unless a claimed item of discovery falls within the express terms of section 1054.3, "there is no statutory or constitutional duty on the part of the defendant to disclose anything to the prosecution." ( Andrade v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1609 , 1613, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ( Andrade ).) "This result is unavoidabl

2019Chapter 10 "creates a nearly symmetrical scheme of discovery ..., with any imbalance favoring the defendant as required by reciprocity under the due process clause." ( Izazaga , supra , 54 Cal.3d at p. 377 , 285 Cal.Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 , italics added.) For the defense, unless a claimed item of discovery falls within the express terms of section 1054.3, "there is no statutory or constitutional duty on the part of the defendant to disclose anything to the prosecution." ( Andrade v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1609 , 1613, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ( Andrade ).) "This result is unavoidabl

2019Chapter 10 "creates a nearly symmetrical scheme of discovery ..., with any imbalance favoring the defendant as required by reciprocity under the due process clause." ( Izazaga , supra , 54 Cal.3d at p. 377 , 285 Cal.Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 , italics added.) For the defense, unless a claimed item of discovery falls within the express terms of section 1054.3, "there is no statutory or constitutional duty on the part of the defendant to disclose anything to the prosecution." ( Andrade v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1609 , 1613, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ( Andrade ).) "This result is unavoidabl

2014“Because the decision whether to object is inherently tactical, the failure to object to evidence will seldom establish incompetence.” (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 490-491 .) Because defense counsel had no reason (just as we have no reason) to believe that a proper foundation could not have been laid following a sustained objection, a failure to object does not demonstrate deficient performance.

2005Although plaintiffs are correct that application of this defense generally rests on questions of fact (see Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 978 ), this does not mean the defense can never prevail at the pleading stage or on a motion to strike.

1977We therefore reaffirm the belief we expressed in Johnson that “We cannot properly assume that there will be a wholesale making of false statements under oath” ( 50 Cal.2d at p. 697 ).

1977We therefore reaffirm the belief we expressed in Johnson that "We cannot properly assume that there will be a wholesale making of false statements under oath" ( 50 Cal.2d at p. 697 ).