Latest 3 Cases: People v. Leon (Civil Rights), People v. Partee (Criminal Law), Barefoot v. Jennings (Trusts & Estates)

The Unacknowledged Clash Between the Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Religion Clauses and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and UC Davis law professor emeritus Alan Brownstein comment on a largely unacknowledged clash between religious accommodations and exemptions on the one hand, and core free speech principles which the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, on the other. Amar and Brownstein describe this apparent conflict and suggest that the Court begin to resolve the conflict when it decides two cases later this term presenting the question of the scope of the “ministerial exception.”

Read More

People v. Leon

Docket: S143531A

Opinion Date: January 23, 2020

Judge: Carol Corrigan

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder and sentence of death for one murder and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the other murder, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below. Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court did not err in admitting Defendant's convictions because there was no basis to conclude Defendant's Miranda waiver was anything other than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; (2) any error in instructing the jury was harmless; (3) Defendant's challenges to the constitutionality of California's death penalty scheme were unavailing; and (4) the potential errors in the instructions were harmless, and even considered together, the errors did not warrant reversal.

People v. Partee

Docket: S248520

Opinion Date: January 23, 2020

Judge: Goodwin Liu

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal affirming Defendant's conviction of four felony counts of accessory after the fact to murder and one misdemeanor count of contempt of court, holding that a witness's refusal to testify in the face of a valid subpoena, while punishable as contempt, does not by itself amount to harboring, concealing, or aiding a principal within the meaning of Cal. Penal Code 32. On appeal, Defendant argued that her failure to testify did not support the accessory conviction because her silence did not fulfill the "overt or affirmative assistance" requirement of the crime of accessory. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that Defendant's silence did not constitute overt or affirmative assistance and did not transform her misdemeanor offense of contempt into four felony offenses of accessory after the fact to murder.

Barefoot v. Jennings

Docket: S251574A

Opinion Date: January 23, 2020

Judge: Ming Chin

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

The Supreme Court held that the Probate Code grants standing in probate court to individuals who claim that trust amendments eliminating their beneficiary status arose from incompetence, undue influence, or fraud, thus reversing the decision of the court of appeal concluding that only a currently named beneficiary can petition the court concerning the internal affairs of a trust or to determine the existence of the trust under Cal. Prob. Code 17200, subdivision (a). Plaintiff, one of the daughters of Joan Lee Maynord, was a beneficiary under the Maynord Family Trust. Maynord subsequently executed a series of amendments to the trust. In these amendments Plaintiff's share of the trust was eliminated and Plaintiff was expressly disinherited. Plaintiff then filed a petition alleging the amendments disinheriting her were invalid on three grounds. The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that Plaintiff lacked standing because she was neither a beneficiary nor a trustee under the trust. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that claims that trust provisions or amendments are the product of incompetence, undue influence, or fraud should be decided by the probate court if the invalidity of those provisions or amendments would render the challenger a beneficiary of the trust.