likely defense in California

2022(Ibid.) The likely standard “ ‘ “ ‘does not mean more likely than not; instead, the standard of likelihood is met “when ‘the person presents a substantial danger, that is, a serious and well-founded risk, that he or she will commit such crimes if free in the community.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (Jackson, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 8.) “[E]xpert testimony is critical” because “the primary issue is not, as in a criminal trial, whether the individual committed certain acts, but rather involves a prediction about the 3 individual’s future behavior.” (People v. McKee (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1172, 1192 (McKee).)

2015Defendant cites the testimony of these witnesses as showing “at least one critical instance of actual prejudice,” claiming the prosecutors used the privileged communications that interfere with the attorney-client relationship, as reprehensible as it was,” did not amount to a constitutional violation of the right to counsel; “the existence or nonexistence of prejudicial evidence derived from an alleged interference with the attorney-client relationship is relevant in determining if the defendant has been denied the right to counsel”].) 10 In Levy, the government learned that the defense intend

2013(See People v. Monreal (2006) 52 Cal.App.4th 670, 674-679 [defendant’s own statements, recounted in probation report, were properly admitted as statements by a party contained in a record by a public employee], disapproved on another point in People v. Trujillo (2006) 40 Cal.4th 165, 178-179, 181, fn. 3 .) Those conditions, however, might often be lacking for most of the typical contents of such a report.

2013(See People v. Monreal (2006) 52 Cal.App.4th 670, 674-679 [defendant’s own statements, recounted in probation report, were properly admitted as statements by a party contained in a record by a public employee], disapproved on another point in People v. Trujillo (2006) 40 Cal.4th 165, 178-179, 181, fn. 3 .) Those conditions, however, might often be lacking for most of the typical contents of such a report.

1994The fact that the records are in respondent’s possession is irrelevant to the determination of whether the creation of the records was compelled.” (465 U.S. at pp. 611-612 [79 L.Ed.2d at pp. 559-560].) Also: “If the party asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege has voluntarily compiled the document, no compulsion is present and the contents of the document are not privileged.” (Id. at p. 612, fn. 10 [ 79 L.Ed.2d at p. 560 ].) In her concurring opinion, Justice O’Connor was even more emphatic: “. . . the Fifth Amendment provides absolutely no protection for the contents of private papers of any

1994The fact that the records are in respondent’s possession is irrelevant to the determination of whether the creation of the records was compelled.” (465 U.S. at pp. 611-612 [79 L.Ed.2d at pp. 559-560].) Also: “If the party asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege has voluntarily compiled the document, no compulsion is present and the contents of the document are not privileged.” (Id. at p. 612, fn. 10 [ 79 L.Ed.2d at p. 560 ].) In her concurring opinion, Justice O’Connor was even more emphatic: “. . . the Fifth Amendment provides absolutely no protection for the contents of private papers of any

1985(People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 , 679 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d 303 at p. 315 .) “The test of relevance is whether the evidence *1109 ‘tend[s] logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference, to establish any fact[s] material for the people [such as identity, intent, plan, motive, preparation, or opportunity] or to overcome any material matter sought to be proved by the defense.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 631 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 775 , 685 P.2d 1126 ].) The evidence of Callan’s conduct with Misty tends naturally, and by re

1985(People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 567 , 679 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Thompson, supra, 27 Cal.3d 303 at p. 315 .) “The test of relevance is whether the evidence *1109 ‘tend[s] logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference, to establish any fact[s] material for the people [such as identity, intent, plan, motive, preparation, or opportunity] or to overcome any material matter sought to be proved by the defense.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 631 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 775 , 685 P.2d 1126 ].) The evidence of Callan’s conduct with Misty tends naturally, and by re