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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fahy v. Connecticutgreen2 sentences2004(Id. at pp. 222-223.) The court stated; “[W]e need not and do not question the general evidentiary rule that a defendant’s testimony at a former trial is admissible in evidence against him in later proceedings. ...[][] Here, however, the [defendant] testified only *151 after the Government had illegally introduced into evidence three confessions, all wrongfully obtained, and the same principle that prohibits the use of confessions so procured also prohibits the use of any testimony impelled thereby . . . .” (Id. at p. 222, fns. omitted.) Cited in Harrison (id. at p. 224, fn. 10) is this court’ 2004(Id. at pp. 222-223.) The court stated; “[W]e need not and do not question the general evidentiary rule that a defendant’s testimony at a former trial is admissible in evidence against him in later proceedings. ...[][] Here, however, the [defendant] testified only *151 after the Government had illegally introduced into evidence three confessions, all wrongfully obtained, and the same principle that prohibits the use of confessions so procured also prohibits the use of any testimony impelled thereby . . . .” (Id. at p. 222, fns. omitted.) Cited in Harrison (id. at p. 224, fn. 10) is this court’ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Louisgreen2 sentences2004(Id. at pp. 222-223.) The court stated; “[W]e need not and do not question the general evidentiary rule that a defendant’s testimony at a former trial is admissible in evidence against him in later proceedings. ...[][] Here, however, the [defendant] testified only *151 after the Government had illegally introduced into evidence three confessions, all wrongfully obtained, and the same principle that prohibits the use of confessions so procured also prohibits the use of any testimony impelled thereby . . . .” (Id. at p. 222, fns. omitted.) Cited in Harrison (id. at p. 224, fn. 10) is this court’ 2004(Id. at pp. 222-223.) The court stated; “[W]e need not and do not question the general evidentiary rule that a defendant’s testimony at a former trial is admissible in evidence against him in later proceedings. ...[][] Here, however, the [defendant] testified only *151 after the Government had illegally introduced into evidence three confessions, all wrongfully obtained, and the same principle that prohibits the use of confessions so procured also prohibits the use of any testimony impelled thereby . . . .” (Id. at p. 222, fns. omitted.) Cited in Harrison (id. at p. 224, fn. 10) is this court’ | 1 | 1 |
Aydin Corp. v. First State Insurancegreen2 sentences2002Co. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1183, 1188 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 959 P.2d 1213 .) The rule applies irrespective of whether the dispositive policy language is found in clauses described as exclusions, exceptions, limitations, conditions, or endorsements: "[I]t is the function served by policy language, not the location of language in an insurance policy, that is determinative." ( Id. at p. 1191, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 959 P.2d 1213 , italics added.) This rule follows from the general evidentiary rule found in Evidence Code section 500 that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, a party has the burden of 2002Co. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1183, 1188 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 959 P.2d 1213 .) The rule applies irrespective of whether the dispositive policy language is found in clauses described as exclusions, exceptions, limitations, conditions, or endorsements: "[I]t is the function served by policy language, not the location of language in an insurance policy, that is determinative." ( Id. at p. 1191, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 537 , 959 P.2d 1213 , italics added.) This rule follows from the general evidentiary rule found in Evidence Code section 500 that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, a party has the burden of | 1 | 1 |
People v. O'CONNELLgreen2 sentences1992(People v. O'Connell (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 548, 553 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 542 ].) Unlike testimony given at either a probation revocation hearing or a hearing on a suppression motion, a defendant is not being forced to choose between one right and another when he decides to testify at his first trial. 1992(People v. O'Connell (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 548, 553 [ 199 Cal.Rptr. 542 ].) Unlike testimony given at either a probation revocation hearing or a hearing on a suppression motion, a defendant is not being forced to choose between one right and another when he decides to testify at his first trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1992(P eople v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 966, fn. 48 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 751 P.2d 395 ].) The procedure employed by the trial court here is more closely analogous to the general evidentiary rule that a defendant’s testimony at a former trial *109 is admissible in evidence against him at a later trial. 1992(P eople v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 966, fn. 48 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 751 P.2d 395 ].) The procedure employed by the trial court here is more closely analogous to the general evidentiary rule that a defendant’s testimony at a former trial *109 is admissible in evidence against him at a later trial. | 1 | 1 |
Harrison v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1984(See, e.g., United States v. Nell (5th Cir. 1978) 570 F.2d 1251, 1259-1260 [defendant’s testimony at former trial admissible against him in later proceeding if testimony not given in response to illegally obtained evidence]; London v. Patterson (9th Cir. 1972) 463 F.2d 95, 97 , cert. den., 411 U.S. 906 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 196 , 93 S.Ct. 1531 ] [former testimony, voluntarily given in criminal trial, may be introduced in later trial upon remand]; Harrison v. United States (1968) 392 U.S. 219, 222 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1047, 1051 , 88 S.Ct. 2008 ] [“. . . we . . . do not question the general evidentiary rule tha 1984(See, e.g., United States v. Nell (5th Cir. 1978) 570 F.2d 1251, 1259-1260 [defendant’s testimony at former trial admissible against him in later proceeding if testimony not given in response to illegally obtained evidence]; London v. Patterson (9th Cir. 1972) 463 F.2d 95, 97 , cert. den., 411 U.S. 906 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 196 , 93 S.Ct. 1531 ] [former testimony, voluntarily given in criminal trial, may be introduced in later trial upon remand]; Harrison v. United States (1968) 392 U.S. 219, 222 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1047, 1051 , 88 S.Ct. 2008 ] [“. . . we . . . do not question the general evidentiary rule tha | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard Nellgreen1 sentence1984(See, e.g., United States v. Nell (5th Cir. 1978) 570 F.2d 1251, 1259-1260 [defendant’s testimony at former trial admissible against him in later proceeding if testimony not given in response to illegally obtained evidence]; London v. Patterson (9th Cir. 1972) 463 F.2d 95, 97 , cert. den., 411 U.S. 906 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 196 , 93 S.Ct. 1531 ] [former testimony, voluntarily given in criminal trial, may be introduced in later trial upon remand]; Harrison v. United States (1968) 392 U.S. 219, 222 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1047, 1051 , 88 S.Ct. 2008 ] [“. . . we . . . do not question the general evidentiary rule tha | 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. Reyes
green
1 sentence2021Rather, when he waives his privilege against self-incrimination by testifying in the guilty phase of the trial, that privilege is waived for the sentencing phase as well.” (Id. at p. 108.) The situation is “closely analogous to the general evidentiary rule that a defendant’s testimony at a former trial is admissible in evidence against him at a later trial. . . . [¶] . . . [O]nce [the] defendant decided to testify and waive his privilege against self-incrimination, his testimony was admissible against him to prove the prior conviction allegations.” (Id. at pp. 108-109.) In perhaps a more extre | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Spencer
green
2 sentences2004(Id. at pp. 222-223.) The court stated; “[W]e need not and do not question the general evidentiary rule that a defendant’s testimony at a former trial is admissible in evidence against him in later proceedings. ...[][] Here, however, the [defendant] testified only *151 after the Government had illegally introduced into evidence three confessions, all wrongfully obtained, and the same principle that prohibits the use of confessions so procured also prohibits the use of any testimony impelled thereby . . . .” (Id. at p. 222, fns. omitted.) Cited in Harrison (id. at p. 224, fn. 10) is this court’ 2004(Id. at pp. 222-223.) The court stated; “[W]e need not and do not question the general evidentiary rule that a defendant’s testimony at a former trial is admissible in evidence against him in later proceedings. ...[][] Here, however, the [defendant] testified only *151 after the Government had illegally introduced into evidence three confessions, all wrongfully obtained, and the same principle that prohibits the use of confessions so procured also prohibits the use of any testimony impelled thereby . . . .” (Id. at p. 222, fns. omitted.) Cited in Harrison (id. at p. 224, fn. 10) is this court’ | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Welfare Rights Organization v. Crisan
green
2 sentences2003In Crisan, Welfare and Institutions Code section 10950 (section 10950) provided that an applicant for public social services who was dissatisfied with a county decision concerning his or her receipt of such services under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program could “in person or though an authorized representative . . . be accorded an opportunity for a fair hearing . . . .” (Crisan, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 770 .) The issue before the court was “whether communications between welfare claimants and lay representatives authorized to represent them in administrative fair hearin 2003In Crisan, Welfare and Institutions Code section 10950 (section 10950) provided that an applicant for public social services who was dissatisfied with a county decision concerning his or her receipt of such services under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program could “in person or though an authorized representative . . . be accorded an opportunity for a fair hearing . . . .” (Crisan, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 770 .) The issue before the court was “whether communications between welfare claimants and lay representatives authorized to represent them in administrative fair hearin | 1 | 2003–2003 |
John Allan London v. L. N. Patterson, Superintendent, Deuel Vocational Institution
green
1 sentence1984(See, e.g., United States v. Nell (5th Cir. 1978) 570 F.2d 1251, 1259-1260 [defendant’s testimony at former trial admissible against him in later proceeding if testimony not given in response to illegally obtained evidence]; London v. Patterson (9th Cir. 1972) 463 F.2d 95, 97 , cert. den., 411 U.S. 906 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 196 , 93 S.Ct. 1531 ] [former testimony, voluntarily given in criminal trial, may be introduced in later trial upon remand]; Harrison v. United States (1968) 392 U.S. 219, 222 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1047, 1051 , 88 S.Ct. 2008 ] [“. . . we . . . do not question the general evidentiary rule tha | 1 | 1984–1984 |
District 65, Distributive Workers v. Kaufmann
green
1 sentence1984(See, e.g., United States v. Nell (5th Cir. 1978) 570 F.2d 1251, 1259-1260 [defendant’s testimony at former trial admissible against him in later proceeding if testimony not given in response to illegally obtained evidence]; London v. Patterson (9th Cir. 1972) 463 F.2d 95, 97 , cert. den., 411 U.S. 906 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 196 , 93 S.Ct. 1531 ] [former testimony, voluntarily given in criminal trial, may be introduced in later trial upon remand]; Harrison v. United States (1968) 392 U.S. 219, 222 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1047, 1051 , 88 S.Ct. 2008 ] [“. . . we . . . do not question the general evidentiary rule tha | 1 | 1984–1984 |
McCloud v. Branch
green
1 sentence1984(See, e.g., United States v. Nell (5th Cir. 1978) 570 F.2d 1251, 1259-1260 [defendant’s testimony at former trial admissible against him in later proceeding if testimony not given in response to illegally obtained evidence]; London v. Patterson (9th Cir. 1972) 463 F.2d 95, 97 , cert. den., 411 U.S. 906 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 196 , 93 S.Ct. 1531 ] [former testimony, voluntarily given in criminal trial, may be introduced in later trial upon remand]; Harrison v. United States (1968) 392 U.S. 219, 222 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 1047, 1051 , 88 S.Ct. 2008 ] [“. . . we . . . do not question the general evidentiary rule tha | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.