The issue in Brown is: Did the trial court err in granting the People’s motion under Penal Code section 1050 to continue the hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, when it was reasonably foreseeable that denying the continuance would result in a dismissal of the case but the People otherwise failed to show good cause for a continuance?
The court limited review in Jenkins to the following issue: When a habeas corpus petitioner
claims not to have received a fair trial because the district attorney failed to disclose material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83—and when the Attorney General has knowledge of, or is in actual or constructive possession of, such evidence—what duty, if any, does the Attorney General have to acknowledge or disclose that evidence to the petitioner? Would any such duty be triggered only upon issuance of an order to show cause?
The opinions can be viewed Monday starting at 10:00 am.