eBriefs June 14, 2019
FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 2019
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
A 2015 amendment to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, excepting calls “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States,” was content-based and incompatible with the First Amendment.
Duguid v. Facebook, Inc. (U.S.); filed June 13, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-15320
Criminal Law and Procedure
A capital defendant’s Eighth Amendment right against arbitrary and capricious sentencing was not violated by the jury’s penalty-phase consideration of evidence that he threatened a person’s property and poisoned that person’s dogs. A federal appellate court will defer to a state supreme court’s factual findings that a defendant had knowingly and intelligently waived his state habeas petition.
Kirkpatrick, Jr. v. Chappell; filed June 13, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 14-99001
An individual’s statements regarding his birthplace constituted evidence of alienage—not identity—and is suppressable. Law enforcement’s categorical authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant does not extend to a preexisting plan whose central purpose is to detain, interrogate, and arrest a large number of individuals without individualized reasonable suspicion.
Cruz v. Barr; filed June 13, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 15-70530
Bartlett v. Nieves; filed June 13, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 16-35631
California Supreme Court
Criminal Law and Procedure
A defendant was not entitled to be present when counsel for both sides discussed juror hardship in chambers and agreed by stipulation to excuse certain jurors. A trial court did not err in allowing the introduction of clothing a defendant was wearing on the night her children were murdered given the incriminating nature of the clothing. While a defendant’s compromised physical and psychological condition alone will not render her statements involuntary, that condition is relevant to the inquiry and presents an opportunity for abuse.
People v. Caro; filed June 13, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2712
California Court of Appeal
A motion to join a child custody evaluator as a party to a marital dissolution action is not a cause of action subject to a special motion to strike; the evaluator did not need to be joined as a party to the dissolution action in order for the court to determine the reasonableness of his expert fees—including whether to order him to repay fees already received—and it was error for the court to require that he be joined in the action.
Marriage of Benner; Fourth District, Div. One; filed June 12, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2737
Name-calling and ridicule are not cogent legal arguments. If a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, the arguments are deemed waived. A fugitive from justice who willfully disobeyed a court order is not entitled to challenge the sanctions against him on appeal.
United Grand v. Malibu Hillbillies (Sanai), LLC; Second District, Div. Eight; filed May 22, 2019, publication ordered June 12, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2745