Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file opinions in Facebook Inc. v. Superior Court, Delano Farms Company v. California Table Grape Commission, and In re Lewis, all of which were argued on the large March calendar.  (Briefs here; oral argument videos here, here, and here.)

Facebook raises these questions:  (1) Did the Court of Appeal properly conclude that defendants in a murder case are not entitled to pretrial access to records of the victim and a witness in the possession of Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter under the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.) and People v. Hammon (1997) 15 Cal.4th 117?  (2) Does an order barring pretrial access to the requested records violate defendants’ right to compulsory process and confrontation under the Sixth Amendment or their due process right to a fair trial?  (3) Should the court limit or overrule People v. Hammon (1997) 15 Cal.4th 117?  (Second District, Division Two, Court of Appeal Justice Kenneth Yegan is the pro tem.)  This case is not to be confused with a similar Facebook case in which the court granted review four months ago.

Delano Farms will address whether, under Article 1, section 2, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution, the California Table Grape Commission can compel unwilling produce growers to contribute for generic commercial advertising.  (Justice Leondra Kruger is recused.  Fourth District, Division Two, Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez and Fourth District, Division One Justice Cynthia Aaron are the pro tems.)

In Lewis, a habeas corpus proceeding by a death row prisoner, the court issued an order to show cause limited to claims why the prisoner is not entitled to relief (1) as a result of trial counsel’s failure to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of his trial, and (2) on the ground that he is intellectually disabled under Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 304.  (See In re Hawthorne (2005) 35 Cal.4th 40.)  Ten years ago, the court issued a more detailed statement of the issues when it directed a superior court judge to serve as a referee.  (Second District, Division Two, Justice Victoria Chavez is the pro tem.)

The three opinions can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.