CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Court Control of Proceedings
......Duty to Control Proceedings
 19 Cards On This Topic:
  • Court's duty to control proceedings during trial.
  • Before trial court can declare J unavailable, PC §1538.5(p) requires reasonable, good faith measures to ensure same judge who granted previous suppression motion is assigned; failure to meet the standard is prejudicial error.
  • No abuse of discretion in not reopening guilt phase where defense sought to introduce E’s testimony after it rested; as evidence of D’s hospitalization admitted in anticipation of that testimony, no abuse of discretion in striking it.
  • Even if D's bad courtroom misbehavior (throwing apples) could require a mistrial, court could reasonably conclude that a general inquiry about jury's ability to continue, combined with a curative instruction, was sufficient to cure any prejudice.
  • To the extent trial court's comments to defense counsel were a reflection of frustration and irritation at counsel's repeated efforts to elicit inadmissible hearsay, they were not improper.
  • As lack of any judge or court available to bring case to trial w/in statutory period was fault of state and chronic court congestion, trial ct. was correct that good cause did not exist under PC 1382 to delay D's trial.
  • No evidence in record that trial court failed to maintain atmosphere of neutrality or was unduly harsh to D's counsel.
  • Bailiff's questioning counsel on note from D to counsel, shared with D's mother, did not infringe on atty-client privilege and no abuse of discretion in not replacing bailiff.
  • Trial court did not abdicate control of jury re-read to court reporter and, even if so, no PC 1138 violation unless prejudice shown.
  • D's claim of judicial bias failed on merits where judge acted within PC 1044 duty to control proceedings.
  • DA misconduct did not permeate guilt phase where some referred-to evidence later admitted, instructions dispelled prejudice, trial ct. sustained D's objections and admonished DA, and comments and deliberations 6 wks apart
  • D's counsel's flagrant violations of court orders and conduct rules, and her egregious instances of misconduct in besmirching P in motorcycle PI case, required reversal of Caltrans defense judgment.
  • No abuse of discretion in striking D1's petition to compel arbitration, filed by A before the motion which ended in her disqualification—trial court has the power to control proceedings in the furtherance of justice.
  • Removal of D's public defender after D threatened her was w/in trial court's discretion—a safe and rational way to proceed as the court was trying to protect D's right to conflict-free counsel; D found mentally incompetent.
  • No error in allowing courtroom spectators to wear buttons displaying a color photograph of police officer victim for 6 days at start of an 8-week trial.
  • EC 352 exclusion of evidence of pregnant victim's misdemeanor welfare fraud violated neither the confrontation nor due process clauses; judge's duty to control all proceedings.
  • To the extent filing of "notice of unavailability" attempts to put control of court's calendar in the hands of counsel—as opposed to the judiciary—it is an impermissible infringement of court's inherent powers.
  • Trial court did not unreasonably restrict Ps from referring to FDA evidence in opening or case in chief; they had full opportunity to present FDA evidence to support their case and to rebut D's efforts to use FDA evidence as a defense.
  • Rather than dismissing information because witness died during DA's delay, trial court should have fashioned a less severe solution to protect D's due process and fair trial rights.


    •