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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 744576green2 sentences2005Four judges found Thompson had suffered a prejudicial due process violation, reasoning that, in his case, the prosecution, using unreliable informants, had deviated from the theory of joint culpability it had otherwise consistently advanced. ( Thompson, supra, 120 F.3d 1045, 1047, 1055-1059 (plur. opn. of Fletcher, J.).) Two more judges advocated a remand to determine prejudice. ( Id., at pp. 1063-1064 (conc. opn. of Tashima, J.).) However, three other members of the Thompson court expressed serious reservations about the notion that inconsistent prosecutorial theories in separate trials are c 2000(Id. at p. 1059.) In a concurring opinion, Judge Tashima declined to order vacation on this ground because, in his view, a prejudicial due process violation could be established only by finding “which of the two inconsistent theories pursued by the prosecutor represents the true facts and which is false.” (Thompson v. Calderon, supra, 120 F.3d at p. 1064 (conc. opn. of Tashima, J.).) Judge Tashima would have remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Romero and Selfgreen1 sentence2025(People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 221 (Lucas), disapproved on another ground in People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 53, fn. 19 .) Trombetta and Youngblood set out the requirements for a defendant to demonstrate a prejudicial due process violation in the event of lost evidence. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lucasgreen1 sentence2025(People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 221 (Lucas), disapproved on another ground in People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 53, fn. 19 .) Trombetta and Youngblood set out the requirements for a defendant to demonstrate a prejudicial due process violation in the event of lost evidence. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. George T. Kattargreen1 sentence2005Judge Kozinski, for example, noted a line of cases holding that judicial estoppel will not apply against the government. ( Thompson, supra, 120 F.3d 1045, 1070 (dis. opn. of Kozinski, J), citing Nichols v. Scott (5th Cir.1995) 69 F.3d 1255, 1272 , United States v. McCaskey (5th Cir.1993) 9 F.3d 368, 378 , & United States v. Kattar (1st Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 118, 129-130, fn. 7 .) Moreover, Judge Kozinski observed, "[p]rosecutors are not omniscient. [Citation.] They may be confronted with witnesses who present mutually inconsistent versions of what happened, and there may be no way of knowing whic | 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. Carrasco
green
1 sentence2025(Lucas, at p. 221; People v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 961 .) If the evidence has “ ‘an exculpatory value that was apparent before [it] was destroyed,’ ” and is “ ‘of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means,’ ” then its destruction violates due process. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2023(People v. Lewis (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 203, 213 .) Admission of the late-discovered evidence from the cell phones did not violate defendant’s statutory or constitutional rights. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Marriage of Carlsson
green
1 sentence2021Subject to such obvious qualifications as the court’s power to restrict cumulative and rebuttal evidence … , and to exclude unduly prejudicial matter [citation], denial of this fundamental right is almost always considered reversible error.” ’ ” (Carlsson, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 292 .) In Gordon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1103 (Gordon), the plaintiff was injured in a rollover accident in a vehicle. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gordon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
green
1 sentence2021Subject to such obvious qualifications as the court’s power to restrict cumulative and rebuttal evidence … , and to exclude unduly prejudicial matter [citation], denial of this fundamental right is almost always considered reversible error.” ’ ” (Carlsson, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 292 .) In Gordon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1103 (Gordon), the plaintiff was injured in a rollover accident in a vehicle. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Bobby Ray McCaskey A/K/A Snake and Lionel Legard A/K/A Max
green
1 sentence2005Judge Kozinski, for example, noted a line of cases holding that judicial estoppel will not apply against the government. ( Thompson, supra, 120 F.3d 1045, 1070 (dis. opn. of Kozinski, J), citing Nichols v. Scott (5th Cir.1995) 69 F.3d 1255, 1272 , United States v. McCaskey (5th Cir.1993) 9 F.3d 368, 378 , & United States v. Kattar (1st Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 118, 129-130, fn. 7 .) Moreover, Judge Kozinski observed, "[p]rosecutors are not omniscient. [Citation.] They may be confronted with witnesses who present mutually inconsistent versions of what happened, and there may be no way of knowing whic | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Joseph Bennard Nichols v. Wayne Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Cross-Appellee
green
1 sentence2005Judge Kozinski, for example, noted a line of cases holding that judicial estoppel will not apply against the government. ( Thompson, supra, 120 F.3d 1045, 1070 (dis. opn. of Kozinski, J), citing Nichols v. Scott (5th Cir.1995) 69 F.3d 1255, 1272 , United States v. McCaskey (5th Cir.1993) 9 F.3d 368, 378 , & United States v. Kattar (1st Cir.1988) 840 F.2d 118, 129-130, fn. 7 .) Moreover, Judge Kozinski observed, "[p]rosecutors are not omniscient. [Citation.] They may be confronted with witnesses who present mutually inconsistent versions of what happened, and there may be no way of knowing whic | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.