The Supreme Court didn’t straight grant any cases at it conference yesterday, but it depublished two Court of Appeal opinions. Here’s a recap of those actions and some other highlights.
Juvenile de facto LWOP resentencing separate statement
Separate statement in juvenile resentencing case seeks to limit Court of Appeal’s opinion.
Depublication: $10 million sexual harassment reversal/harsh criticism of trial judge
The court denied review in Odom v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., but it granted requests to depublish the Second District, Division Eight, Court of Appeal’s opinion that reversed a $10,000,000 jury award to a college professor in a sexual harassment and retaliation case.
Division Eight called it “an unusual case, due to the significant arbitrary and prejudicial evidentiary rulings of the judge presiding over the trial.” The opinion also said that, during a post-trial motion hearing, “the trial judge initiated extended, bizarre personal comments on racial matters with newly substituted defense counsel (the only Black woman in the courtroom), despite there being no racial issue of any kind in the case.”
The prejudicial errors were found to be “the admission of irrelevant and damaging ‘me-too’ evidence from a witness who was not similarly situated to plaintiff” and the “admission of 20-year-old newspaper articles and other evidence of the alleged harasser’s misdemeanor convictions.” The appellate court said the jury’s verdict was “indeed” supported by substantial evidence, “in light of the extensive irrelevant and prejudicial evidence that never should have been admitted.”
Depublication: $4.9 million insurer v. insurer fraud claim reversal
The court also denied review but depublished — this time without any depublication request — in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Federal Insurance Company.
The Second District, Division Eight, opinion ordered a new trial for one insurance company who lost at a bench trial on its claim it was fraudulently induced to pay another insurance company $4,900,000 to reimburse costs incurred by the payee insurer in the defense of a common insured. The payor insurer asserted it wouldn’t have made the payment had it known the payee insurer had contributed to the insured’s defense voluntarily “at its own expense.” Division Eight agreed that the trial court considered only a fraudulent misrepresentation claim and failed to address a fraudulent concealment claim.
Long sentence commutation
The court granted Governor Gavin Newsom’s May request for a constitutionally required recommendation that allows him to commute the 2004 129-years-to-life sentence of Kevin Schrubb for robbery, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and evading an officer. He had prior felony convictions for burglary (1983), assault with a firearm on a person (1986), receiving stolen property (1989, 1999), robbery (1990), and possession of burglary tools (1999).
In its letter to the Governor, the court specifically noted that Newsom’s “request stated: ‘The Governor is contemplating a commutation of sentence that would make Mr. Schrubb eligible for an earlier parole suitability hearing.’ ” (Related: “Newsom grants clemency, but freedom isn’t certain”.)
Newsom has a nearly perfect clemency record: he withdrew one request before a ruling, but the court — applying a deferential standard (see here and here) — has approved all 75 of his other requests (not counting 11 that are still pending (see here, here, and here)). That’s better than former Governor Jerry Brown, who had the court without explanation block 10 intended clemency grants. The denial of a request implies that a clemency grant would be an abuse of power.
False evidence grant-and-transfer
The court granted review in In re Melson and sent the case back to the Second District, Division One, Court of Appeal, which had summarily denied the habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court directed issuance of an order to show cause “why petitioner is not entitled to relief on the grounds he suffered prejudicial error pursuant to Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264 as alleged in Claim Nos. 1.B. and 2.B. of the petition for writ of habeas corpus . . . , or, in the alternative, that the cumulative effect of the errors alleged in the petition deprived him of due process.”
In Napue, the U.S. Supreme Court held “a State may not knowingly use false evidence, including false testimony, to obtain a tainted conviction.” (360 U.S. at p. 269.) It reversed a conviction following a trial at which the prosecutor knowingly elicited false testimony from a witness that the witness had not been promised “consideration in return for his testimony.”
Division One denied the habeas petition after granting the petitioner’s request for supplemental briefing concerning Glossip v. Oklahoma (2025) 145 S.Ct. 612, where the high court overturned a conviction, finding Napue error in the prosecution allowing false testimony against the defendant.
[July 27 update: This is the second time Division One summarily denied a Melson habeas petition only to have the Supreme Court grant and transfer. The first time was five years ago.]
Murder resentencing grant and transfer
The court also granted and transferred in People v. Williams, instructing the Fourth District, Division Two, to reconsider its decision in light of last month’s felony murder resentencing opinion in People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867. (See here and here.)
Bail OSC
In a pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Chung, the court issued an order to show cause, returnable before the Second District, Division One, “why the petitioner should not be granted a new bail review hearing.”
Racial Justice Act dissenting vote
Justice Kelli Evans dissented from the denial of review in In re Taylor. The Second District, Division Four, in an unpublished opinion, concluded the defendant was not entitled to an attorney and discovery to pursue his claim under California’s Racial Justice Act (see here and here) because the alleged bias was “predicated upon [the defendant’s] religion, which is not a protected category under the RJA.” The defendant is Black and a Muslim.
There was an opinion only because the Supreme Court 10 months ago issued an order to show cause regarding the defendant’s pro per habeas corpus petition with cause to be shown “why petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for the appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (e) and for the production of discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 745, subdivision (d).” (See here.) Division Four had previously summarily denied a substantially identical habeas petition.
“Religious discrimination is offensive and must not be endorsed or tolerated,” Division Four said, “but it is outside the scope of the RJA.”
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were a dozen criminal case grant-and-holds: 10 more are holding for People v. Rhodius, but, unlike most of the previous holds, these are just waiting for the finality of the Rhodius opinion that filed last month; one more waiting for a decision in People v. Mitchell (see here and here); and one more on hold for People v. Fletcher (see here), which was argued last month.
