Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinions in In re White, Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc., and People v. Rodriguez. (Briefs here; oral argument videos here.) These are the first opinions in cases argued on the March calendar.
The White opinion should give a partial idea of what changes the court might make to the current bail system, a system that’s in effect on the November ballot. (See here.)
In White, 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of Senate Bill 10, 2018 legislation that Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye called a “transformative” overhaul of an “outdated, unsafe, and unfair” money bail scheme. 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.
In Hart, the questions presented are: (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.
Rodriguez will decide whether the prosecutor improperly vouched 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.
The opinions can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.
