What Else Might Senate Republicans Have Done, Given That They’re Too Scared to Do the Right Thing?

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers whether there is anything Senate Republicans might have done, instead of outright acquitting President Trump, to maintain the role of Congress as a coequal branch with the Executive. Buchanan proposes that under the text of the impeachment clauses, those Republican senators could have voted for removal—the necessary result of finding wrongdoing—but permitted Trump to run again in the election later this year.

Read More

California v. Mendoza

Docket: E071835(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 5, 2020

Judge: Slough

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Blanca Luna Mendoza was convicted by jury of transporting for sale more than four kilograms of cocaine based on evidence a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent acquired after a stop on Interstate 15 in California. Mendoza sought to exclude the evidence, arguing the agent did not have reasonable suspicion she was engaged in criminal activity when he stopped her. The agent said he decided to stop Mendoza because she was driving in a known smuggling corridor in a vehicle which had crossed the United States-Mexico border in the prior week; she slowed and changed lanes after he pulled alongside her in an unmarked car, rolled down his window, and stared at her; she drove at approximately 50 miles per hour to stay behind him; and she then refused to look at him when she ultimately passed him a few minutes later. The trial court held, with reservations, that the stop was justified, and a jury later convicted her of transporting narcotics for sale. Mendoza appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded the agent based his decision to stop Mendoza on insufficient evidence she was engaged in criminal activity. "At bottom, the agent acted on a hunch, which is improper, even though - in this case - it proved correct."

Alaniz v. Sun Pacific Shippers, L.P.

Docket: B290013(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: February 5, 2020

Judge: Tangeman

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

Sun Pacific appealed the trial court's judgment after a jury awarded damages against it for injuries sustained by an employee of one of its independent contractors. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court prejudicially erred because it did not instruct the jury on the Privette/Hooker doctrine as it applies to either negligence or premises liability. In this case, the trial court instructed the jury that Sun Pacific was liable if its failure to use reasonable care was a substantial factor in harming the employee, but did not say that that principle only applied to the hirer of an independent contractor if its negligent exercise of retained control over safety conditions affirmatively contributed to the harm. Furthermore, the trial court told the jury that Sun Pacific was liable if its negligent use or maintenance of the property was a substantial factor in harming the employee, but did not say that these principles would only apply to Sun Pacific if the hazard were concealed. Therefore, the court held that each instruction was an incorrect statement of law and Sun Pacific has not forfeited its contention. The court also held that the trial court's error was prejudicial. The court held that Sun Pacific was entitled to a mitigation of damages of instruction; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the negligence cause of action; and the court directed the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Sun Pacific on the premises liability cause of action.