Today, the 9th Circuit ruled in Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger. Our original coverage of the case is here and the full decision can be read here.
More expansion on this over the weekend, but the bottom line is:
1) Admissibility of hearsay in parole revocation hearings is still subject to the Comito rule, that is, the need to decide whether to hear the hearsay evidence based on a determination on its importance and the circumstances. Valdivia 1, Schwarzenegger 0.
2) Conflicts between Prop 9 and the court injunction in Valdivia: The case is remanded for the District Court's determination which aspects of Prop 9 violate constitutional rights. This one is a bit more complicated, and it seems that the next move would be the state submitting a plan to the District Court (which they could've done before).
2 comments:
Thanks, Hadar for this post, which is a far more accurate description of the Prop 9 ruling than we have gotten from the Bee and the LA Times. The 9th Circuit did not hold that Prop. 9 is constitutional. Instead, they remanded for Judge Karlton to directly address the conflicts between Prop 9 and the federal constitution, and between Prop 9 and the remedial measures necessary to bring California parole revocation procedures up to the minimal standards required by Morrissey and Gagnon. Judge Karlton had taken a more constitutionally conservative approach, leaving Prop 9 intact as a statement of state law procedural requirements. The Ninth Circuit panel, however, held that Judge Karlton must rule on the federal state conflict at issue here.
Indeed! Thank you so much for this post, Ernest. This is very useful. I wonder what will happen next.
Post a Comment