CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Court Control of Proceedings
......Exclusion of Persons from Court
.........Types of Proceedings
............Criminal Proceedings: Case Law
 18 Cards On This Topic:
  • Dist. ct. did not violate Ds' rights to public trials when it closed the courtrooms while child sexual abuse Vs were testifying.
  • Dist. court may exclude V-witness from court if it finds by clear & convincing evidence that testimony by V would be materially altered if s/he heard other testimony there; CVRA abrogated Rule 615 re crime victims.
  • No error in D's absence from court for part of three hearings where her absence bore no substantial relation to her opportunity to defend against the charges and her attorney was present during her absences.
  • No abuse of discretion in refusing to exclude V’s family members from guilt phase where they either would not be testifying or had already testified and D did not show substantial risk of their presence influencing any testimony.
  • Trial court did not violate D's constit'l and statutory rights by conducting certain proceedings in his absence where they were not critical stages.
  • No abuse of discretion in allowing V's stepgrandson/DA witness to be present at trial.
  • Trial court did not err in refusing to close guilt phase to press and public so D could testify regarding a 2d man involved in murder without fearing for her safety.
  • No error in permitting the presence of V's mother and sister as victims at trial where their presence would not pose a "substantial risk of influencing or affecting the content of any testimony."
  • Standard of review for a trial court's ruling on a motion to permit the presence of a victim under former PC section 1102.6 is abuse of discretion.
  • Trial court erred in depriving D of her statutory and constitutional rights to be present during bailiff's demonstration to jury of gun's operation, which was a critical stage of trial.
  • Exclusion of Ds’ family members at end of gang-related trial after reports they intimidated jurors and DA outside the courtroom was reasonable in the circumstances.
  • Given de minimus error of temporary exclusion of 3 persons from portion of voir dire, temporary closure of proceedings did not violate D's fundamental constitutional right to a public trial.
  • Temporary exclusion of 2 of D's friends during exam of child witness did not result in the violation of D's constitutional right to a public trial.
  • D’s 6th Amend. right to public trial violated when trial court closed courtroom to spectators during testimony of 14-year-old molestation V based only on DA’s assertion V would have difficulty testifying.
  • D's family properly excluded during exam of family member whose state of mind was such that he would be unable to testify fully, freely and completely in their presence.
  • Denial of D's motion to exclude witnesses in sex offense trial not abuse of discretion when no explanation offered for motion.
  • Failure to comply with Pen. Code section 868.7's exhaustion of alternatives requirement mandates dismissal.
  • State law mandating closure for all rape cases while minor victim testifying ruled unconstitutional.


    •