|
Court Watch
CPDA has filed amicus briefs in the following cases. Each of these cases presents important issues for our clients, our constitutional rights, and our work as advocates for indigent defense.
We will update this page as decisions are reached in these cases and as we submit more.
If you are an attorney requesting amicus support in a case, please fill out the form below.
If you are a member of CPDA and would like to volunteer as an amicus writer, please let us know!
| Case Name | CPDA's Position | Court where amicus filed | Case Status |
|---|
Cain v. The Superior Court of Solano County
|
Filed amicus in support of Petitioner, opposing disqualification of Solano County PD in a death penalty case. The issue involved whether the attorney-client privilege between a person previously charged for the homicide who was represented by a former Solano County public defender who became a judge and had retired required recusal of the entire office. |
First District Court of Appeal |
Court granted Petitioner Cain's writ in published case, reversing the trial court's order recusing the Solano County Public Defender's Office.
Opinion here.
|
| People v. Delgadillo |
Amicus support for client denied diversion under PC 1001.20 et seq; court improperly denied diversion based on factors that should have supported it. CPDA filed a joint brief filed with Disability Rights California and Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. |
|
|
| People v. Teran |
CPDA attempted to file an amicus in support of petitioner, an LA County District Attorney who is being prosecuted by the AG for using information she obtained while employed by the LA County Sheriff's Department as a constitutional policing advisor. In her subsequent role at the DA’s office,
supervising the Discovery Compliance Unit, Teran obtained copies of writs that addressed potential Brady material and turned them over to a co-worker with instructions to review them for relevant information regarding their Brady list.
Brian McComas for CPDA and John Phillipsborn for CACJ worked on a joint amicus brief that was rejected by the court as the court only accepted one amicus brief from
each side. More information on the case here. |
2nd District Court of Appeal |
Case argued, April 2, 2025. |
| People v. Hersom |
CPDA requested depublication in this case where court ruled that the defendant voluntarily absented himself during the trial, despite the fact thata he attempted to appear. During jury selection, Hersom, who was in custody, did not appear in court on the second day. The bailiff reported that Hersom refused transport, leading the court to find his absence voluntary and proceed with jury selection. Because of the implications for defendants' trial rights, as guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions, CPDA filed an amicus petitioning for review and requesting depublication. |
California Supreme Court |
Depublication request denied |
| Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court |
CPDA filed a joint amicus with the National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the New York Legal Aid Society, the Innocence
Project, Inc., the New York County Defender Services, the Federal Defenders Office for the Eastern District of California, the Dallas County Public Defender's Office, and the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association and others, emphasizing the importance of access to exculpatory social media content. Social media giants Facebook and Twitter routinely refuse to provide materials critical to proving defenses, despite contempt orders. This case is fighting the request to read into the Stored Communications Act a silent privilege that would allow the companies to escape the power of the courts to compel essential evidence. The appellate court ordered Snap and Meta to produce the requested materials for in-camera review to determine their relevance to the defense and the companies petitioned for review to the California Supreme Court, which granted review. |
California Supreme Court, S286267 |
Amicus filed, February 25, 2024. |
| In re Lerke |
Opposed request for depublication of case affirming that a Murphy conservatee cannot be held in jail/prison while awaiting hospital placement. |
|
|
|
