California Criminal Law Wiki - Recent changes [en]

Disqualification of Judge

Sysop — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 01:01:45 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:01, 3 June 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:

			''People v. Superior Court (Broadbent)'' (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 854 - Behavioral Health Court is a contested matter of law or fact.

	==NOT a contested hearing of the facts on the merits==		==NOT a contested hearing of the facts on the merits==
Line 29:		Line 31:

	Yolo County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Myers (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 42		Yolo County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Myers (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 42

			==Blanket disqualification==


			So since the California Supreme Court’s decision in Solberg (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, blanket disqualification of a judge under CCP170.6 allowed. A blanket disqualification is when a party tries to disqualify a judge on a substantial number of cases, which can be used to choose to decide which judge hears a case, and it can be particularly powerful if exercised by a district attorney’s office, a public defender’s office, or a firm that is contracted for a particular type of case such as juvenile dependency. It can also be disruptive if the challenge is made to a judge is assigned to a specialized court. So in Solberg is overruled.

			So if a party makes a 170.6 motion, opposing counsel can object. “the opponent of a section 170.6 motion must first timely object to a section 170.6 motion and demonstrate a prima facie case that the motion’s proponent is lodging bad faith blanket challenges against a particular judge. More specifically, the opponent of a section 170.6 motion must show that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of a bad faith blanket policy, as opposed to a good faith belief that a judge is prejudiced in a specific case. Among the factors that may be considered in making this prima facie determination are whether the party has lodged persistent strikes against the same judge in all or a substantial portion of cases assigned to that judge, or all or a substantial portion of cases of a particular type. Such a showing may alone be persuasive in establishing a prima facie case of a bad faith blanket policy. As described below, the burden then shifts to the proponent of the motion
			to give an adequate explanation for the challenges.”

			The above procedure is deliberately modeled after Batson-Wheeler/AB3070. So Party X makes a 170.6 motion before judge A. Party Y would object and state a prima facie case to Judge A why it’s a bad faith blanket challenge. If the judge who is being disqualified, judge A, finds prima facie that it’s a bad-faith blanket disqualification, then it gets sent to a different judge, judge B, and party X has to explain it’s not bad-faith.

Public corruption

Sysop — Fri, 29 May 2026 16:27:13 GMT

Show changes

Public corruption

Sysop — Fri, 29 May 2026 04:20:49 GMT

Created page with " ==Penal Code 165 bribery of local elected officials== Every person who gives or offers a bribe to any member of any common council, board of supervisors, or board of trustees of any county, city and county, city, or public corporation, with intent to corruptly influence such member in his action on any matter or subject pending before, or which is afterward to be considered by, the body of which he is a member, and every member of any of the bodies mentioned in this s..."

New page

==Penal Code 165 bribery of local elected officials==

Every person who gives or offers a bribe to any member of any common council, board of supervisors, or board of trustees of any county, city and county, city, or public corporation, with intent to corruptly influence such member in his action on any matter or subject pending before, or which is afterward to be considered by, the body of which he is a member, and every member of any of the bodies mentioned in this section who receives, or offers or agrees to receive any bribe upon any understanding that his official vote, opinion, judgment, or action shall be influenced thereby, or shall be given in any particular manner or upon any particular side of any question or matter, upon which he may be required to act in his official capacity, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years, and upon conviction thereof shall, in addition to said punishment, forfeit his office, and forever be disfranchised and disqualified from holding any public office or trust.

==Gov Code 9054 Bribery of legislator==

Every person who obtains, or seeks to obtain, money or other thing of value from another person upon a pretense, claim, or representation that he can or will improperly influence in any manner the action of any member of a legislative body in regard to any vote or legislative matter, is guilty of a felony. Upon the trial no person otherwise competent as a witness may be excused from testifying concerning the offense charged on the grounds that the testimony may criminate himself, or subject him to public infamy. The testimony shall not afterwards be used against him in any judicial proceeding except for perjury in giving the testimony.

==Eligibility for public officer==

===Irrigation district===

Water Code 21100, subdivision (c), as amended by SB1939 in 2000 says:

(c) In a district providing retail electricity for residents of the district, each director, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be a voter of the district and a resident of the division that he or she represents at the time of his or her nomination or appointment and during his or her entire term, . . . . .

Government Code section 244 says:

In determining the place of residence the following rules shall be observed:

(a) It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he or she returns in seasons of repose.

(b) There can only be one residence.

(c) A residence cannot be lost until another is gained.

(d) The residence of the parent with whom an unmarried minor child maintains his or her place of abode is the residence of such unmarried minor child.

(e) The residence of an unmarried minor who has a parent living cannot be changed by his or her own act.

(f) The residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent.

(g) A married person shall have the right to retain his or her legal residence in the State of California notwithstanding the legal residence or domicile of his or her spouse.

Residence and domicile for purposes of elections are essentially the same. (Walters v. Weed (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1, 7.) A change in domicile requires an intent to live there. (DeMiglio v. Mashore (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1268.) As in, “whether there is an intent to return or an intent to make a new home.” (Ibid.)

In the context of determining a person's residence for the purpose of registering to vote, or running for certain elected positions, residence means domicile, a place in which a person's habitation is fixed, wherein she has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever she is absent, she has the intention of returning. At any given time, a person may have only one domicile, and a person does not lose their domicile, or gain a new one, by going to another place for a temporary purpose. However, residence does not always mean domicile. Residence can also mean a place in which a person's habitation is fixed for some shorter period, but wherein she does not have the intention of remaining indefinitely. At any given time, a person may have more than one residence for various purposes other than voting or running for office.

False nomination paperwork would be prosecuted under Elections Code 18203.

Perjury is Penal Code 118.

Voter registration history

The nomination paperwork

DMV records, including both license and vehicle registration

Property records

USPS records about change-of-address

FPPC filings

Firearm purchase records

Social media

CLEAR / Lexis

License Plate Readers

Business filing with Secretary of State

Witness interviews

Surveillance

Lease agreements

Call records

Cell phone location data

Witness

Sysop — Thu, 28 May 2026 02:18:31 GMT

Detention of witness

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:18, 28 May 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:

	People v. Cogswell (2010) 48 Cal.4th 467		People v. Cogswell (2010) 48 Cal.4th 467

			When faced with a witness whom both sides want to call at trial, counsel should not be lured into relying on the prosecution to locate, subpoena and produce the witness at trial. Our Supreme Court has held it does not constitute bad faith for the prosecution to announce, for the first time, during trial it will not call such a witness, even if the defense had relied on their representations that they would attempt to produce the witness. “The defense was responsible for securing the presence of any witness it wanted to call at trial, regardless of whether the prosecution would also be using that witness” (People v. Harrison, 35 Cal. 4th 208, 241, 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224, 106 P.3d 895 (2005)).