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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2010 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Floridagreen2 sentences2010We conclude that pretrial disclosure of the examination results is necessary to permit the prosecution to prepare its rebuttal case so that it can subject Maldonado's psychiatric evidence to the truth-revealing process of adversarial testing, and to avoid significant midtrial delays in proceedings. (12) In Williams v. Florida , the United States Supreme Court held that pretrial discovery rules requiring the defendant to "furnish the State with information useful in convicting him" did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. ( Williams v. Florida (1970) 399 2010We conclude that pretrial disclosure of the examination results is necessary to permit the prosecution to prepare its rebuttal case so that it can subject Maldonado's psychiatric evidence to the truth-revealing process of adversarial testing, and to avoid significant midtrial delays in proceedings. (12) In Williams v. Florida , the United States Supreme Court held that pretrial discovery rules requiring the defendant to "furnish the State with information useful in convicting him" did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. ( Williams v. Florida (1970) 399 | 4 | 5 |
Wardius v. Oregongreen2 sentences1974In Wardius a defendant was prevented from introduc *821 ing any evidence to support his alibi defense as a sanction for his failure to comply with a notice of alibi rule which on its face made no provision for reciprocal discovery, and the United States Supreme Court held (at p. 472 [ 37 L.Ed.2d at p. 86 ]) that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids enforcement of alibi rules unless reciprocal discovery rights are given to criminal defendants.” Wardius also noted that “the State’s inherent information gathering advantages suggest that if there is to be any imbalance in di 1974In Wardius a defendant was prevented from introduc *821 ing any evidence to support his alibi defense as a sanction for his failure to comply with a notice of alibi rule which on its face made no provision for reciprocal discovery, and the United States Supreme Court held (at p. 472 [ 37 L.Ed.2d at p. 86 ]) that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids enforcement of alibi rules unless reciprocal discovery rights are given to criminal defendants.” Wardius also noted that “the State’s inherent information gathering advantages suggest that if there is to be any imbalance in di | 1 | 4 |
Prudhomme v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1991Prudhomme v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 320, 322, 327 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 466 P.2d 673 ] held that a discovery order directing the defense attorney to give the prosecution the names, addresses, and expected testimony of anticipated defense witnesses violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination because it could require the defendant “to disclose information which might serve as a link in a chain of evidence tending to establish [the defendant’s] guilt of a criminal offense.” Prudhomme's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was substantially undermined by Williams v. Florida ( 1991Prudhomme v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 320, 322, 327 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 466 P.2d 673 ] held that a discovery order directing the defense attorney to give the prosecution the names, addresses, and expected testimony of anticipated defense witnesses violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination because it could require the defendant “to disclose information which might serve as a link in a chain of evidence tending to establish [the defendant’s] guilt of a criminal offense.” Prudhomme's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was substantially undermined by Williams v. Florida ( | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Izazaga v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1998(See Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 376 , 285 Cal.Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 .) We observed: "Reciprocity under the due process clause requires notice that the defendant will have the opportunity to discover the prosecutor's rebuttal witnesses (and their statements) following discovery of defense witnesses by the prosecutor. ( Wardius, supra, 412 U.S. 470, 479 , 93 S.Ct. 2208, 2214 .....) Reciprocity requires a fair trade, defense witnesses for prosecution witnesses, and nothing more. 1998(See Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 376 .) We observed: “Reciprocity under the due process clause requires notice that the defendant will have the opportunity to discover the prosecutor’s rebuttal witnesses (and their statements) following discovery of defense witnesses by the prosecutor. ( Wardius, supra, 412 U.S. 470 , 479 . . . .) Reciprocity requires a fair trade, defense witnesses for prosecution witnesses, and nothing more. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Allen v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1991However, in Allen v. Superior Court (1976) 18 Cal.3d 520 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 774 , 557 P.2d 65 ] the California Supreme Court reaffirmed its Prudhomme holding on state constitutional grounds stating Prudhomme “plainly proscribes compelled defense disclosures which ‘conceivably might lighten the prosecution’s burden of proving its case in chief.’ [Citation.]” (Allen v. Superior Court, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 525 , italics omitted.) The Legislature thereafter enacted former Penal Code section 1102.5 which allowed the prosecution to obtain from the defense prior statements of a witness, other than the 1991However, in Allen v. Superior Court (1976) 18 Cal.3d 520 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 774 , 557 P.2d 65 ] the California Supreme Court reaffirmed its Prudhomme holding on state constitutional grounds stating Prudhomme “plainly proscribes compelled defense disclosures which ‘conceivably might lighten the prosecution’s burden of proving its case in chief.’ [Citation.]” (Allen v. Superior Court, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 525 , italics omitted.) The Legislature thereafter enacted former Penal Code section 1102.5 which allowed the prosecution to obtain from the defense prior statements of a witness, other than the | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Brooks v. Tennessee
green
2 sentences1991But the United States Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Brooks v. Tennessee (1972) 406 U.S. 605 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 358 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 ] (hereafter Brooks), decided only two years after the Williams decision, demonstrates, in my view, that the majority’s broad reading of Williams cannot be sustained. 1991But the United States Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Brooks v. Tennessee (1972) 406 U.S. 605 [ 32 L.Ed.2d 358 , 92 S.Ct. 1891 ] (hereafter Brooks), decided only two years after the Williams decision, demonstrates, in my view, that the majority’s broad reading of Williams cannot be sustained. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Nobles
green
2 sentences1991Prudhomme v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 320, 322, 327 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 466 P.2d 673 ] held that a discovery order directing the defense attorney to give the prosecution the names, addresses, and expected testimony of anticipated defense witnesses violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination because it could require the defendant “to disclose information which might serve as a link in a chain of evidence tending to establish [the defendant’s] guilt of a criminal offense.” Prudhomme's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was substantially undermined by Williams v. Florida ( 1991Prudhomme v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 320, 322, 327 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 466 P.2d 673 ] held that a discovery order directing the defense attorney to give the prosecution the names, addresses, and expected testimony of anticipated defense witnesses violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination because it could require the defendant “to disclose information which might serve as a link in a chain of evidence tending to establish [the defendant’s] guilt of a criminal offense.” Prudhomme's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment was substantially undermined by Williams v. Florida ( | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Reynolds v. Superior Court
yellow
2 sentences1975In Reynolds , declining to exercise our “inherent power to provide for the orderly administration of justice through judicially declared rules of criminal discovery” ( 12 Cal.3d at p. 837 ), we found it inappropriate, in view of “complex and closely balanced questions of state and federal constitutional law” (id.) to declare judicially a notice-of-alibi rule. 1975In Reynolds , declining to exercise our "inherent power to provide for the orderly administration of justice through judicially declared rules of criminal discovery" ( 12 Cal.3d at p. 837 ), we found it inappropriate, in view of "complex and closely balanced questions of state and federal constitutional law" ( id. ) to declare judicially a notice-of-alibi rule. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.