Latest 2 Cases: California v. Flores (Constitutional Law), People v. Palomar (Criminal Law)

The Real Insidious Part of Dershowitz’s Impeachment Defense

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker discuss Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz’s explanation of why he stands (virtually) alone in his views on impeachment—that all the scholars who disagree with him are biased partisans. Amar and Caminker explain why this claim is so insidious, with effects lasting well beyond the span of the current presidency.

Read More

California v. Flores

Docket: D075826(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 3, 2020

Judge: Judith McConnell

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

At issue before the Court of Appeal was whether an otherwise qualified person convicted of voluntary manslaughter, as opposed to murder, could invoke the resentencing provision of Senate Bill 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015.). Defendant Fallon Lupe Flores was charged with murder, but pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. Years later, she filed a petition to have her conviction vacated and to be resentenced under the resentencing provision of Senate Bill No. 1437. The trial court denied Flores's petition on grounds that the resentencing provision was available only to qualifying persons who were convicted of murder - not persons who were convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court, and therefore affirmed denial of Flores' petition.

People v. Palomar

Docket: B292450A(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 3, 2020

Judge: Kenneth R. Yegan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

On rehearing, the Court of Appeal affirmed defendant's conviction for second degree murder based on an implied malice theory. Defendant punched the victim, the victim fell and hit his head on the curb, and then defendant walked away without taking any measures to assist the victim, who had blood coming from out of his ears, mouth, and the back of his head. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of implied malice. In this case, the physical component of implied malice was satisfied where defendant's act of violence was predictably dangerous to human life, and the mental component of implied malice was satisfied where defendant knew that his conduct endangered the victim's life and he acted with a conscious disregard for life.