Obstacles to the Biden Agenda Include Americans’ Belief in Nonsense

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the willingness of Americans to believe lies and misinformation, pointing to confirmation bias and social media bubbles as playing key roles in this problem. Professor Dorf argues that we must render Trumpism beyond the pale, in part by shunning those who spread lies and minimizing opportunities for them to spread dangerous misinformation and incite riots.

Read More

People v. Carr

Docket: A158637(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 19, 2021

Judge: Siggins

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

While Carr was awaiting trial, the court found him incompetent to stand trial. In August 2015, the court ordered Carr committed to Porterville Developmental Center. Two months later, Carr remained in jail. The court ordered the facility to admit him within 21 days. Before a scheduled show-cause hearing, the parties were informed that Porterville was not a suitable placement because Carr required involuntary medication. The court continued the hearing to allow the state to determine appropriate placement. In March 2016, a Department of State Hospitals (DSH) psychiatrist certified that Carr was competent to stand trial. The court of appeal found the certificate of competency “adequate to initiate proceedings.” A hearing began in February 2018 (Penal Code 1372). In June 2018 the court found Carr incompetent and again ordered his placement at Porterville. Carr unsuccessfully moved for release, arguing he had completed the maximum authorized three-year commitment. The trial court reasoned that DSH’s March 2016 certification of competency tolled the commitment period. The superior court rejected that argument; the period between the March 2016 certificate of competency and the June 2018 ruling counted in calculating Carr's maximum commitment time. The court of appeal affirmed. The Penal Code vests the trial court with the responsibility to determine whether a defendant found incompetent to stand trial and committed for treatment has been restored to competency. That determination, not a health official’s certification of competency that initiates court proceedings, terminates the defendant’s commitment.

Bohnett v. County of Santa Barbara

Docket: B303520(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 19, 2021

Judge: Tangeman

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Tax Law, Trusts & Estates

Bernard and Sheila created the Family Trust and transferred their home to themselves as trustees. The trust became irrevocable upon the death of the surviving spouse, when the estate would be distributed to Sheila’s 13 children, including Bohnett. Sheila died in 2003. Bernard died in 2008. The property was rented out. The rent was deposited into the trust’s bank account. In 2012, the trustee filed a successful Claim for Reassessment Exclusion for Transfer Between Parent and Child (Proposition 58 claim), listing Sheila and Bernard as transferors, her children as transferees, and the date of Bernard’s death as the date of transfer. In 2013, the property was transferred by the trustee to Bohnett. A Preliminary Change of Ownership Report listed the trust as the seller/transferor, stated that the purchase was a transfer between parent(s) and child(ren), and listed the sale price as $1,030,000. The trustee distributed the money in equal shares to the 13 siblings. A second Proposition 58 claim listed Sheila and Bernard as transferors and Bohnett as transferee, leaving blank the date of transfer. The county found that there was a 12/13 change in ownership and reassessed the property from $157,731 to $962,873 for 2012/2013, and $963,114 for 2013/2014. Bohnett filed unsuccessful Applications for Changed Assessment. The court of appeal affirmed in favor of the County. The purchase by one beneficiary from his siblings and co-beneficiaries was not a parent-child transfer exempt from reassessment for property tax purposes.