Search for: "Pitchess v. Superior Court"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2023, 9:58 am
Superior Court. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 10:06 am
Superior Court, S170550, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court in the matter, which had held that Pitchess discovery is not normally available before a preliminary hearing because such discovery is relevant only to issues at trial, where the prosecution has to prove a defendant's guilt. [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 4:04 pm
Supreme Court’s holding in Brady v. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 11:52 am
The case, Pitchess v. [read post]
13 Aug 2007, 10:30 am
Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that a trial court may permit a defendant to file a Pitchess affidavit under seal if the trial court determines that such a filing is necessary to protect the attorney-client and work product privileges. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 8:28 am
The Court adds that had the Legislature intended that Pitchess motions could only be conducted in the superior court, it could have but did not provide a mechanism to transfer a motion from an administrative proceeding to the superior courts. [read post]
15 May 2018, 11:54 am
Ryan Cannon has posted Reconciling Brady and Pitchess: Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 8:31 am
On Friday, April 23, 2010, a California appeals court ruled in Brown v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 5:17 pm
Superior Court. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 4:45 pm
Superior Court; 2007 DJ DAR; DJ, 8/10/07; Cal. [read post]
22 Jun 2007, 9:50 am
Superior Court, 2007 Cal. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 9:38 am
Superior Court (Johnson) considered the interplay between the United States Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Brady v. [read post]
20 Oct 2024, 4:46 pm
Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 9:28 am
Superior Court (Johnson). [read post]
29 Dec 2006, 7:59 am
Under the state Supreme Court case of Pitchess v. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 8:39 am
Superior Court, the Court of Appeal held that neither exemption applied, and that the names must be disclosed. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 12:51 am
Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, describing the codification of Pitchess motion procedures and privileges, i.e., Evidence Code section 1043 applies to any case in which the defendant can show good cause for the discovery, materiality to the subject matter involved in the pending ... [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 2:01 pm
Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696 [California Supreme Court held that even prosecutors must comply with the Pitchess procedures if they seek information from confidential peace officer personnel records]). [read post]
