Law Commons^™

Whose Rights Matter More—Police Privacy Or A Defendant’S Right To A Fair Trial?, Laurie L. Levenson

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The function of the prosecutor under the federal Constitution is not to tack as many skins of victims as possible to the wall. His function is to vindicate the right of the people as expressed in the laws and give those accused of crime a fair trial.

– William O. Douglas

Foreword, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Losses Are Too Big: Evaluating The Economic Loss Doctrine In California, John T. Nockleby

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The pure economic loss doctrine is a rule developed by common law courts to shield a defendant from exposure to negligence suits where a party has not suffered physical injury or property damage, and the only losses someone suffers are economic in nature—such as lost profits or wages. Most recently, the California Supreme Court evaluated whether the doctrine should be applied in a case involving a massive environmental disaster, holding that the doctrine shielded a utility from liability for the economic losses to neighboring businesses caused by its putative negligence.

In October of 2015, a huge underground natural gas storage …

Overdue Justice: People V. Valenzuela And The Path Toward Gang Prosecution Reform, Ryan Nelson

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Buza: A Step In The Wrong Direction, Emily R. Pincin

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Re Cook And The Franklin Proceeding: New Door, Same Dilapidated House, Christopher Hawthorne, Marisa Sacks

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The California Supreme Court’s decision in In re Cook was supposed to bring about a sea change in the way trial courts conduct Franklin mitigation hearings for youthful offenders. In fact, while Cook changed the procedure for initiating a post-conviction Franklin proceeding, little else has changed, including the lack of agreement among attorneys concerning best practices in these proceedings, and a less than less-than-enthusiastic response from the criminal defense bar. Absent any guidance from higher courts, the Franklin proceeding is limited by the personal and institutional energies and preferences of judges, prosecutors, public defenders and private defense counsel. The authors …

California's Child Abuse Dependency Hearsay Exception In In Re I.C., Rachel Monas

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Making Constitutional Sense: A Modal Approach To California's Proposition 66, Alan Romero

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

For years, the California Supreme Court has adopted a deferential posture when reviewing state constitutional challenges to a ballot initiative. The decision in Briggs v. Brown underscored the degree to which courts are willing to avoid striking down ballot initiatives on constitutional grounds, such as by broadly construing the initiative’s language to avoid constitutional problems. In construing the language of Proposition 66 to avoid separation of powers problems, however, Briggs effectively re-interpreted central pillars of Proposition 66 in ways rendering it unrecognizable to Californians who cast votes for and against the initiative. Such recasting of ballot initiatives raises fundamental jurisprudential …

Misdemeanors For All Purposes? Interpreting Proposition 47’S Ameliorative Scope In A New Era Of Criminal Justice Reform, Kayla Burchuk

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In 2014, Proposition 47 reclassified seven low-level felonies to misdemeanors, demonstrating voters’ striking rejection of California’s historically punitive sentencing policies. This Note examines the recent wave of California Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting Proposition 47 by exploring the court’s varied readings of the initiative’s ballot materials and statutory text. While the court has liberally construed relief for affected property crimes, it has responded ambivalently in more controversial areas such as drug offenses, mandatory parole periods, and automatic resentencing. This variation reveals ideological tensions between the goal of expanding ameliorative benefits to low-level offenders and anxiety regarding public safety. This Note analyzes …

Richards Ii Takes A Bite Out Of Forensic Science, Michelle Cornell-Davis

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Delusive Exactness In California: Redefining The Claim, Kami Laberge

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

My view of primary right may differ from yours, and we have no common ground, only the statement of our opposing views.

Prosecutorial Ventriloquism: People V. Tom And The Substantive Use Of Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence To Infer Consciousness Of Guilt, Joshua Bornstein

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Falcon Cannot Hear The Falconer: How California's Initiative Process Is Creating An Untenable Constitution, Rudy Klapper

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Californians have always cherished the idea that ultimate political power lies in the people, an idea best represented by the state’s hugely influential initiative process. Today, however, that initiative power threatens to spiral out of control, thanks in large part to the California Supreme Court’s inability to construe appropriate limits on it. This has created an unbalanced government where the rights of minorities are easily circumscribed and the financial and political infrastructure of the state is in danger of buckling under the combined weight of dozens of initiatives. This Article argues that the judiciary’s haphazard interpretation of various rules and …

Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …