Kathryn Werdegar

The case involved defendant Jacob Townley Hernandez, who was convicted of attempted murder in a gang-related shooting and argued that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by barring his attorney from discussing with him the existence or contents of sealed transcripts and declarations from two witnesses' plea agreements. The California Supreme Court held that such an interference with attorney-client consultation does not automatically require reversal or presume prejudice; instead, the defendant can obtain relief only by showing that the order affected the reliability of the trial process under the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether prejudice occurred. The core reasoning was that not all unwarranted restrictions on counsel's ability to consult with a client justify a presumption of prejudice, particularly when the restriction concerns a specific piece of evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a class action brought by hourly employees against Brinker Restaurant Corporation alleging violations of California wage and hour laws requiring meal and rest periods. The Supreme Court of California reviewed the trial court's certification of three subclasses and the scope of an employer's duty to provide meal breaks. The court concluded that an employer must relieve employees of all duty during meal periods but need not ensure that no work occurs, and it evaluated certification under an abuse-of-discretion standard focused on common policies and evidence. It upheld certification of the rest-break subclass based on evidence of uniform policies, remanded the meal-break subclass for further review, and reversed certification of the off-the-clock subclass for lack of common proof. The opinion addresses threshold legal questions only to the extent they affect the certification decision.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the 1991 murder of Armando Miller, who was shot in the head outside a bank after withdrawing cash for his family's market; defendant John Clyde Abel was identified by witnesses, linked through prior associations and accomplice testimony, and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder with a robbery special circumstance and personal firearm use. The jury imposed a death sentence, which Abel appealed on numerous grounds including evidentiary errors, instructional issues, prosecutorial misconduct, and challenges to the death penalty statute. The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in full, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts, that any errors at trial were not prejudicial, and that the penalty procedures and statute were constitutional under existing precedent.

criminal law

In this case, a minor student sued his high school guidance counselor and the school district for damages from alleged sexual harassment and abuse by the counselor. The trial court sustained the district's demurrer, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, but the California Supreme Court reversed. The court held that while the district could not be held vicariously liable for the counselor's intentional acts outside the scope of employment, it could face liability under Government Code section 815.2 for the negligence of its supervisory or administrative employees in hiring, retaining, or supervising the counselor if they knew or should have known of her propensities and failed to protect the student from foreseeable harm. The decision rests on the principle that school personnel owe students a duty of ordinary care, and a breach by administrators can result in district liability assuming no immunity applies.

civil rightstorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff injured in a car accident caused by the defendant's employee, who sought damages for past medical expenses based on the full amounts billed by providers. The providers had accepted lower payments from the plaintiff's insurer under preexisting contracts and written off the balances, so neither the plaintiff nor her insurer paid the full billed amounts. The trial court allowed the jury to award the full billed sum of about $190,000, but the California Supreme Court reversed, holding that a plaintiff may recover only the amounts actually paid or incurred as economic damages. The court reasoned that damages under Civil Code sections 3281 and 3282 compensate only for actual detriment suffered, and the collateral source rule does not expand recoverable damages to include amounts never owed due to provider agreements.

torts & liability

The case involved two defendants, John Anthony Gonzales and Michael Soliz, members of the Puente gang, who were charged with first-degree murders of three victims: Lester Eaton during a robbery at his market and Elijah Skyles and Gary Price in a retaliatory shooting at a gas station. A Los Angeles County jury convicted both of first-degree murder with special circumstances of multiple murder and murder during robbery, resulting in death sentences for Gonzales on one count and Soliz on two counts, with life without parole on others after penalty phase proceedings. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgments in full, finding no prejudicial errors in the guilt or penalty phases, either individually or cumulatively.

criminal law