The California Supreme Court Historical Society’s website has links to dozens of programs that can be viewed for participatory MCLE credit. That’s especially important for attorneys with A–G last names who need to comply with the State Bar’s MCLE requirements by March 29.

The available videos include nine programs that the Society itself put on, one of which I moderated:

An Evening with retired California Chief Justice Tani Cantil Sakauye (see here).

The California Supreme Court’s Abortion Jurisprudence (see here) (I moderated this one).

Unholy Covenants, How California Courts Came to Enforce Racial and Ethnic Restrictions on Housing and Their Impact Today (see here).

California Without Law (see here).

Looking Back, A Review of Significant Decisions of the California Supreme Court in 2023 (see here).

Free Speech and the Internet (see here).

Perez v. Sharp (see here).

South Dakota v. Brown (see here).

The Alexander Pantages Rape Trials (see here).

The Society programs are free to everyone and there’s also no charge to Society members for MCLE credit; non-members will pay $25 for credit. Costs for other programs vary.

The Supreme Court has posted videos of the three oral arguments that were heard on the court’s January calendar.

Opinions in the cases should file by April 7.

The Supreme Court today reverses some of a multitude of convictions for a kidnapping-robbery-murder/attempted murder and a separate drive-by shooting, both in 2003, but the defendant doesn’t receive sufficient relief to overturn the death penalty imposed on him. Also, the court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Goodwin Liu in the case, People v. Hin, although acknowledging a Court of Appeal divide about the retroactivity of recent legislation to restrict evidence of rap lyrics in criminal cases, opts not to resolve the conflict.

The court reverses one of three special circumstances findings — for gang-murder — that supported the death penalty, and it similarly finds improper gang sentencing enhancements, but the court concludes reversing the one special circumstance finding doesn’t negate the capital sentence in light of the other special circumstances findings (kidnapping-murder and robbery-murder), which it upholds. It also overturns six counts of attempted premeditated murder because it finds prejudicial the superior court’s giving the jury an alternative of convicting the defendant under theories — the natural and probable consequences doctrine and a version of the felony murder rule — that the Legislature had subsequently invalidated, and because of a lack of substantial evidence for two counts. Giving the jury the same invalid alternative for the murder conviction, however, is found to be harmless error because the two remaining “special circumstances findings . . . indicate that the jury necessarily found [the defendant] guilty under a valid theory of felony murder.”

The Courts of Appeal are divided about the retroactivity of Assembly Bill 2799, which the Legislature enacted in 2022 to limit an artist’s “creative expression” as evidence in a criminal trial because of, the bill stated, the “significant risk of unfair prejudice when rap lyrics are introduced into evidence.” The Hin opinion doesn’t reach that issue because it finds the admission into evidence of a rap song on a CD found in the defendant’s bedroom was erroneous under pre-AB 2799 law and was harmless in any event. The opinion does say, however, that “[i]t is precisely because of the risk of injecting racial bias into the jury’s decisionmaking that the Legislature passed [AB 2799, which added] Evidence Code section 352.2.” (Link added.) The retroactivity issue might be decided later in another capital appeal, People v. Bankston, or in any of several cases that for now are grant-and-holds for Hin and Bankston but could be un-held.

The Supreme Court rejects a number of other arguments for reversal, including a claim the defendant was prejudiced by the trial judge and an interpreter having emotional reactions to victim impact testimony. Denying a mistrial motion, the judge said, “So the question is are we going to continue to have living breathing human beings as judges or we’re going to replace the bench with robots, or should I have taken a recess and gone and had a shot of Valium or something to dope myself up to deaden all my human emotions?”

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in the four cases on its February calendar. The justices will be sitting in Sacramento for the first time in five years. (See here, here, and here.)

The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by May 5.

Because of the oral arguments, the court will not be conferencing (also here) this week and there will be a double conference next week.

On Monday morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinion in People v. Hin, an automatic direct appeal from a February 2006 judgment of death. (Briefs here; oral argument video here.) As in most capital appeals, the opinion will likely address many issues. But one in particular might be especially significant.

The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. With good reason. The Hin opening brief alone is a 3-volume, 413-page filing with 20 major headings in its argument section.

The one issue with headline potential concerns 2022’s Assembly Bill 2799, which the Legislature enacted to limit an artist’s “creative expression” as evidence in a criminal trial. The stated purpose of the bill, adding Evidence Code section 352.2, was to address the “significant risk of unfair prejudice when rap lyrics are introduced into evidence.”

There are a number of non-capital grand-and-hold cases waiting for the Hin opinion and also the opinion in another pending death penalty appeal, People v. Bankston. When those cases were held, court staff stated that Hin and Bankston “include an issue involving the retroactivity of the provision in Assembly Bill No. 2799 (Stats. 2022, ch. 973) limiting the admissibility of creative expressions (Evid. Code, § 352.2).” (See here and here.)

This will be the last of three opinions in the November calendar cases. Other argued but undecided cases are the four on the December calendar (opinions due by March 3, except for the death penalty appeal in People v. McGhee, in which the opinion isn’t due until April 3 because of post-argument briefing) and the three on the January calendar (opinions due by April 7).

The Hin opinion can be viewed Monday starting at 10:00 a.m.

Governor Gavin Newsom has asked the Supreme Court to approve a posthumous pardon for Richard Penry. A court recommendation is constitutionally required before a governor can grant clemency to anyone who has been “twice convicted of a felony.” (The request was made three weeks ago, but only today appeared on the court’s docket.)

Penry received the nation’s highest military accolade, the Medal of Honor, for his heroics in 1970 during the Vietnam War. He died in 1994 at age 45. (See also Andrew Graham’s report for The Press Democrat.)

The letter to the court from Newsom’s Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary relates that Penry was convicted in 1974 for transporting or sale of a controlled substance and then again in 1984, in federal court. It also says, “After his military service, Sgt. Penry returned to California at a time when there were few resources for veterans. Like many other veterans, Sgt. Penry struggled with reentry to civilian life. He self-medicated to manage his untreated Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which was the context for his convictions.”

The court has said it reviews clemency recommendation requests under a deferential standard. (See here and here.) And Newsom has a nearly perfect record — he withdrew one request before a ruling, but the court has approved all 70 of his other requests. 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.

The Governor’s request was filed under seal. It will remain shielded from the public unless someone moves to unseal the records. If a motion is filed, which seems unlikely, the court would probably require Newsom to justify keeping all or part of the records under wraps and would then probably make redacted records available for viewing. (See here and here.)

Justice Goodwin Liu will be the keynote speaker at the 2025 Capital Case Defense Seminar next month. The four-day event in Monterey is billed as “an intensive educational opportunity for anyone involved in, or  considering taking on, the defense of a capital case.”

Justice Liu is scheduled to address the attendees on the seminar’s first day, February 14.

Malcolm Maclachlan has an extended report in today’s Daily Journal that begins:

“California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero told reporters last week that she would not ‘pick a fight’ with the new administration of President Donald Trump. But Trump may have just picked one with her.

“On Wednesday, the administration lifted a ban on conducting immigration enforcement raids in courthouses, schools and other ‘sensitive areas’ where they had been barred under President Joe Biden’s administration. If Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials follow through and begin entering state courthouses, it would effectively cross a line Guerrero laid out during her annual sit-down meeting with reporters on Jan. 16.”

The article says that the Chief Justice declined to comment yesterday.

Related:

Chief Justice pledges to protect court access against disruptive federal immigration actions and addresses a wide range of other issues at her annual meeting with the media

A California Courts news release by Merrill Balassone reports on Supreme Court changes to its policies and payment guidelines for appointed counsel in death penalty litigation, including direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings, and payment guidelines for appointed counsel in all criminal cases.

The news release says the changes “account for developments relevant to the representation of capital inmates before the California Supreme Court, including the passage of Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016, and the enactment of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020.” It looks like the policies and payment guidelines also apply to Supreme Court-appointed counsel representing criminal defendants in the superior court.

The revised “Supreme Court Policies Regarding Cases Arising from Judgments of Death” are here and the amended “Payment Guidelines for Counsel Appointed by the Supreme Court Representing Indigent Capital Appellants in California Courts” and “Guidelines for Fixed Fee Appointments, on Optional Basis, to Automatic Appeals and Capital Habeas Corpus Proceedings in California Courts” are here.