Can a President Who Is Reelected After Being Acquitted in One Impeachment Case be Retried by a Subsequent Senate?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar considers whether a President who has been impeached and acquitted may, if reelected, be retried by a subsequent Senate. Amar acknowledges that it is unclear whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments’ criminal procedural protections apply to impeachment proceedings, but he offers two key reasons that re-litigation of impeachment allegations after presidential reelection would be improper.

Read More

Dalessandro v. Mitchell

Docket: B293472(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 3, 2020

Judge: Tricia A. Bigelow

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics

Plaintiff and his counsel appealed from a postjudgment order denying plaintiff's motion to compel the production of documents and imposing $3,456.70 in sanctions against counsel for discovery abuses. The underlying action involved residual payments owed by defendant to plaintiff. The Court of Appeal denied the petition challenging the motion to compel the production of documents, and affirmed the imposition of $3,456.70 in sanctions against counsel. The court held that, although plaintiff lacked standing, counsel had standing to appeal the order and was properly an appellant in this matter. The court also held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to compel; rejected challenges to the monetary sanctions levied against counsel; held that a separate motion is not required, nor is a separate hearing on discovery sanctions; and held that the trial court did not err in awarding discovery sanctions representing fees and costs incurred.

Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, Inc.

Dockets: B284613(Second Appellate District) , B288036(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 3, 2020

Judge: Tricia A. Bigelow

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

Wade Robson and James Safechuck filed suit against two of Michael Jackson's corporations, MJJ Productions, Inc. and MJJ Ventures, Inc., for their involvement in Jackson's alleged sexual abuse of Robson and Safechuck. Plaintiffs filed suit after their 26th birthdays, and the trial court concluded their claims were untimely because they did not fall within the narrow exception of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1. However, effective January 1, 2020, section 340.1 was amended to allow a victim to bring claims of childhood sexual assault against third-party nonperpetrators until the victim's 40th birthday. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments in the corporations' favor and held that the extended limitations period of the revised section 340.1 applied to render plaintiffs' claims timely. In this case, plaintiffs filed their lawsuits before their 40th birthdays and their cases remained pending on appeal. Therefore, they have not reached finality. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings.

People v. Palomar

Docket: B292450(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 3, 2020

Judge: Kenneth R. Yegan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed defendant's conviction of second degree murder, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding of implied malice. Defendant punched the victim who fell down and hit his head on the curb. The court held that the evidence of defendant's conduct and his mental state satisfied the elements of implied malice. The court stated that defendant announced his intention to attack the victim, and he did so in no uncertain terms.