Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 1972–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Mooregreen2 sentences2025(People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1104 , 1119– 1120 (Moore).) A trial court, at its discretion, may “ ‘appoint advisory counsel to assist an indigent defendant who elects self- representation. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 738 .) Advisory counsel “actively assists the defendant in preparing the defense case by performing tasks and providing advice pursuant to the defendant’s requests, but does not participate on behalf of the defense in court proceedings.” (Moore, at p. 1119, fn. 7.) As an alternative to, or in addition to advisory counsel, a court may appoint “stan 2025(People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1104 , 1119– 1120 (Moore).) A trial court, at its discretion, may “ ‘appoint advisory counsel to assist an indigent defendant who elects self- representation. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 738 .) Advisory counsel “actively assists the defendant in preparing the defense case by performing tasks and providing advice pursuant to the defendant’s requests, but does not participate on behalf of the defense in court proceedings.” (Moore, at p. 1119, fn. 7.) As an alternative to, or in addition to advisory counsel, a court may appoint “stan | 3 | 4 |
People v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2025(Cf. Morelos, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 738–739 [assuming without deciding that trial court “erroneously failed to recognize its discretion” to grant defendant’s request for advisory counsel where the trial judge stated, “probably I don’t have the ability to comply with your request”].) In capital cases, the California Supreme Court has recognized a form of hybrid representation where an advising attorney “ ‘actively assists the defendant in preparing the defense case by performing tasks and providing advice pursuant to the defendant’s requests, but does not participate on behalf of the defense | 1 | 1 |
People v. Trujequegreen1 sentence2025(People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1104 , 1119– 1120 (Moore).) A trial court, at its discretion, may “ ‘appoint advisory counsel to assist an indigent defendant who elects self- representation. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 738 .) Advisory counsel “actively assists the defendant in preparing the defense case by performing tasks and providing advice pursuant to the defendant’s requests, but does not participate on behalf of the defense in court proceedings.” (Moore, at p. 1119, fn. 7.) As an alternative to, or in addition to advisory counsel, a court may appoint “stan | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boysengreen1 sentence2013(People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 107 (Catlin); People v. Boysen (2007) 165 Cal.App.4th 761, 772 (Boysen).) Prejudice, under both the speedy trial standard and the due process standard, may be shown from the loss of evidence, whether from the loss of material witnesses or from fading memory attributable to the delay, sufficient to hinder the defendant in preparing a defense. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Catlingreen2 sentences2013(People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 107 (Catlin); People v. Boysen (2007) 165 Cal.App.4th 761, 772 (Boysen).) Prejudice, under both the speedy trial standard and the due process standard, may be shown from the loss of evidence, whether from the loss of material witnesses or from fading memory attributable to the delay, sufficient to hinder the defendant in preparing a defense. 2013(Catlin, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 107 .) We uphold the trial court‟s ruling on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lowerygreen2 sentences2001Absent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the information is plainly inappropriate." ( Id, at p. 1228, 246 Cal.Rptr. 443 ; see id. at p. 1229, 246 Cal.Rptr. 443 ["Lowery has made no showing that the prosecutor made any use of the information he obtained from the tape, or that he failed to act in an evenhanded manner"].) In People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786 , 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 , 905 P.2d 1305 , the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that deputies had seized, scrutinized, and lost certain papers generated by the defendant in preparing his defense. 2001Absent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the information is plainly inappropriate." ( Id, at p. 1228, 246 Cal.Rptr. 443 ; see id. at p. 1229, 246 Cal.Rptr. 443 ["Lowery has made no showing that the prosecutor made any use of the information he obtained from the tape, or that he failed to act in an evenhanded manner"].) In People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786 , 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 , 905 P.2d 1305 , the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that deputies had seized, scrutinized, and lost certain papers generated by the defendant in preparing his defense. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Memrogreen2 sentences2001Absent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the information is plainly inappropriate." ( Id, at p. 1228, 246 Cal.Rptr. 443 ; see id. at p. 1229, 246 Cal.Rptr. 443 ["Lowery has made no showing that the prosecutor made any use of the information he obtained from the tape, or that he failed to act in an evenhanded manner"].) In People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786 , 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 , 905 P.2d 1305 , the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that deputies had seized, scrutinized, and lost certain papers generated by the defendant in preparing his defense. 2001Absent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the information is plainly inappropriate." ( Id, at p. 1228, 246 Cal.Rptr. 443 ; see id. at p. 1229, 246 Cal.Rptr. 443 ["Lowery has made no showing that the prosecutor made any use of the information he obtained from the tape, or that he failed to act in an evenhanded manner"].) In People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786 , 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 , 905 P.2d 1305 , the defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that deputies had seized, scrutinized, and lost certain papers generated by the defendant in preparing his defense. | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Larsongreen2 sentences1985(See, e.g., Lopez v. Larson (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 383, 400 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 912 ]; Innovest, Inc. v. Bruckner, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 599 .) Commenting *1029 on this rationale, the court in Dunsmuir Masonic Temple v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at pages 22-23 argued: “Criticism has been leveled at our judicial system because of delays. 1985(See, e.g., Lopez v. Larson (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 383, 400 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 912 ]; Innovest, Inc. v. Bruckner, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 599 .) Commenting *1029 on this rationale, the court in Dunsmuir Masonic Temple v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at pages 22-23 argued: “Criticism has been leveled at our judicial system because of delays. | 1 | 1 |
General Motors Corp. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1985The universally accepted rationale, expressed by the Supreme Court in General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88, 91 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 416 P.2d 492 ], is to “promote the trial of cases before evidence is lost, destroyed, or the memory of witnesses becomes dimmed.” In this way, the statute seeks to “extend[] to the party or parties against whom [an action] is brought an opportunity to properly present any defense which may be available at the time of the commencement of the action.” (Steinbauer v. Bondesen, supra, 125 Cal.App. at p. 423 .) Some other courts, while acknowledgi 1985The universally accepted rationale, expressed by the Supreme Court in General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88, 91 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 416 P.2d 492 ], is to “promote the trial of cases before evidence is lost, destroyed, or the memory of witnesses becomes dimmed.” In this way, the statute seeks to “extend[] to the party or parties against whom [an action] is brought an opportunity to properly present any defense which may be available at the time of the commencement of the action.” (Steinbauer v. Bondesen, supra, 125 Cal.App. at p. 423 .) Some other courts, while acknowledgi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Morelos
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1104 , 1119– 1120 (Moore).) A trial court, at its discretion, may “ ‘appoint advisory counsel to assist an indigent defendant who elects self- representation. [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Morelos (2022) 13 Cal.5th 722, 738 .) Advisory counsel “actively assists the defendant in preparing the defense case by performing tasks and providing advice pursuant to the defendant’s requests, but does not participate on behalf of the defense in court proceedings.” (Moore, at p. 1119, fn. 7.) As an alternative to, or in addition to advisory counsel, a court may appoint “stan 2025(Cf. Morelos, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 738–739 [assuming without deciding that trial court “erroneously failed to recognize its discretion” to grant defendant’s request for advisory counsel where the trial judge stated, “probably I don’t have the ability to comply with your request”].) In capital cases, the California Supreme Court has recognized a form of hybrid representation where an advising attorney “ ‘actively assists the defendant in preparing the defense case by performing tasks and providing advice pursuant to the defendant’s requests, but does not participate on behalf of the defense | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Miracle
green
1 sentence2025(Cf. Morelos, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 738–739 [assuming without deciding that trial court “erroneously failed to recognize its discretion” to grant defendant’s request for advisory counsel where the trial judge stated, “probably I don’t have the ability to comply with your request”].) In capital cases, the California Supreme Court has recognized a form of hybrid representation where an advising attorney “ ‘actively assists the defendant in preparing the defense case by performing tasks and providing advice pursuant to the defendant’s requests, but does not participate on behalf of the defense | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Prudhomme v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2001In affirming his conviction, the Supreme Court wrote: "[T]he [trial] court decided that even if there was intentional interference with th[e] right [to counsel], defendant had been able to show no prejudice. [¶] The ruling was sound.... [N]othing in the record suggests that attorney-client communications were revealed, and the prosecutor stated in his offer of proof that no information from the materials was known to, received by, or used to benefit the prosecution or the police." ( Id, at p. 836, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 , 905 P.2d 1305 , italics added.) Similarly, in People v. White (1984) 161 Cal 2001In affirming his conviction, the Supreme Court wrote: "[T]he [trial] court decided that even if there was intentional interference with th[e] right [to counsel], defendant had been able to show no prejudice. [¶] The ruling was sound.... [N]othing in the record suggests that attorney-client communications were revealed, and the prosecutor stated in his offer of proof that no information from the materials was known to, received by, or used to benefit the prosecution or the police." ( Id, at p. 836, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 , 905 P.2d 1305 , italics added.) Similarly, in People v. White (1984) 161 Cal | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. White
neutral
2 sentences2001In affirming his conviction, the Supreme Court wrote: "[T]he [trial] court decided that even if there was intentional interference with th[e] right [to counsel], defendant had been able to show no prejudice. [¶] The ruling was sound.... [N]othing in the record suggests that attorney-client communications were revealed, and the prosecutor stated in his offer of proof that no information from the materials was known to, received by, or used to benefit the prosecution or the police." ( Id, at p. 836, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 , 905 P.2d 1305 , italics added.) Similarly, in People v. White (1984) 161 Cal 2001In affirming his conviction, the Supreme Court wrote: "[T]he [trial] court decided that even if there was intentional interference with th[e] right [to counsel], defendant had been able to show no prejudice. [¶] The ruling was sound.... [N]othing in the record suggests that attorney-client communications were revealed, and the prosecutor stated in his offer of proof that no information from the materials was known to, received by, or used to benefit the prosecution or the police." ( Id, at p. 836, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219 , 905 P.2d 1305 , italics added.) Similarly, in People v. White (1984) 161 Cal | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Innovest, Inc. v. Bruckner
green
1 sentence1985(See, e.g., Lopez v. Larson (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 383, 400 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 912 ]; Innovest, Inc. v. Bruckner, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at p. 599 .) Commenting *1029 on this rationale, the court in Dunsmuir Masonic Temple v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at pages 22-23 argued: “Criticism has been leveled at our judicial system because of delays. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Steinbauer v. Bondesen
green
1 sentence1985The universally accepted rationale, expressed by the Supreme Court in General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court (1966) 65 Cal.2d 88, 91 [ 52 Cal.Rptr. 460 , 416 P.2d 492 ], is to “promote the trial of cases before evidence is lost, destroyed, or the memory of witnesses becomes dimmed.” In this way, the statute seeks to “extend[] to the party or parties against whom [an action] is brought an opportunity to properly present any defense which may be available at the time of the commencement of the action.” (Steinbauer v. Bondesen, supra, 125 Cal.App. at p. 423 .) Some other courts, while acknowledgi | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Mayson v. State
green
2 sentences1972The main objectives of rule 728 are to assist the defendant in preparing his defense, and to protect him from surprise (Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283 [ 208 A.2d 599 ]). 1972The main objectives of rule 728 are to assist the defendant in preparing his defense, and to protect him from surprise (Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283 [ 208 A.2d 599 ]). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.