The Supreme Court’s March calendar will have five cases, including one of two pending high-profile bail cases that could be affected by new legislation, which in turn could be overturned by a referendum that will be on the November ballot. (See: Should the bail cases be on hold until after next year’s referendum?) There is still no argument scheduled in Robinson v. Lewis. (See here.)
On March 3, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or stated by the court itself):
Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc.: (1) Was a witness’s testimony about his recollection of seeing invoices regarding the supply of products containing asbestos to plaintiff’s worksite inadmissible hearsay? (2) Could secondary evidence of the invoices be authenticated by the witness’s statements and other circumstantial evidence? The court granted review in February 2019.
National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter v. City of Hayward: Does the California Public Records Act permit a public agency to shift the cost of redacting exempt information from electronic records to the party making the request for the records although the cost of redaction cannot be required for paper records? The court granted review in December 2018.
In re White: This is the bail case. The court limited the issues to these: (1) Under what circumstances does the California Constitution permit bail to be denied in noncapital cases? Included is the question of what constitutional provision governs the denial of bail in noncapital cases — article I, section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c), or article I, section 28, subdivision (f)(3), of the California Constitution — or, in the alternative, whether these provisions may be reconciled. (2) What standard of review applies to review of the denial of bail? (3) Did the Court of Appeal err in affirming the trial court’s denial of bail? The court also later asked for supplemental briefing regarding the “effect, if any,” of Senate Bill 10, 2018 legislation that Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye called a “transformative” overhaul of an “outdated, unsafe, and unfair” money bail scheme. There’s no indication that Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye will be recused. (See: A possible reason the Chief Justice shouldn’t recuse herself from hearing the bail cases.) It’s possible the case is moot as to the petitioner; the docket shows a letter reporting he pleaded guilty and was scheduled to be sentenced in June 2018. The court granted review in May 2018.
People v. Rodriguez: Did the prosecutor improperly vouch for the testifying correctional officers by arguing in rebuttal that they had no reason to lie, would not place their careers at risk by lying, and would not subject themselves to possible prosecution for perjury? The court granted review in November 2018.
People v. Miles: This is an automatic direct appeal from a February 2000 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such cases. Counsel was first appointed in July 2004; new counsel was appointed in December 2010. Initial briefing was completed in December 2014. The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed an amicus curiae brief. Amicus briefs are unusual in death penalty appeals.
