The Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Real Rigging of Georgia’s Election

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar explains why Georgia’s law allowing persons 75 years and older to get absentee ballots for all elections in an election cycle with a single request, while requiring younger voters to request absentee ballots separately for each election, is a clear violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Dean Amar acknowledges that timing may prevent this age discrimination from being redressed in 2020, but he calls upon legislatures and courts to understand the meaning of this amendment and prevent such invidious disparate treatment of voters in future years.

Read More

COVID Comes to Federal Death Row—It Is Time to Stop the Madness

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—explains the enhanced risk of COVID-19 infection in the federal death row in Terre Haute, not only among inmates but among those necessary to carry out executions. Professor Sarat calls upon the Trump administration and other officials to focus on saving, rather than taking, lives inside and outside prison.

Read More

California v. Bravo

Docket: E072782(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: Manuel A. Ramirez

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1997, defendant Estaban Zarate Bravo pleaded guilty to, and was convicted on a plea bargain agreement of: a felony violation of domestic violence (count 1) and felony violation of child cruelty (count 2). Defendant was a native of Mexico and Spanish was his first language. He appeared in custody at a hearing on June 24, 1997, at which he pleaded guilty to both counts with the use of an interpreter. The immediate advantage of his plea was that defendant was to be released from custody that same day so that he could return to his construction job without being fired and could therefore support his spouse and their child. Of more immediate importance, defendant was informed by counsel and the prosecution that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would conduct a sweep of the county jail where he was being held by the next morning; being released that afternoon allowed him to avoid the ICE sweep and likely deportation. The trial court sentenced defendant to two years’ incarceration, suspended, and placed him on formal probation for 36 months on terms and conditions including 25 days’ custody, for which he was granted time served. In 2018, defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Penal Code sections 1016.5 and 1473.7. In 2019, the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, defendant contended the Court of Appeal should grant his motion to vacate or, alternatively, remand to and direct the trial court to grant the motion, specifically contending that at the time of his plea agreement, he was unaware of future immigration consequences of his plea. Defendant contended his trial attorney’s communication, coupled with the written admonition on the plea, as read to him by the interpreter, would leave any reasonable person to believe that so long as he avoided the ICE agents while incarcerated, he would not confront immigration consequences. The Court of Appeal found that “a defendant’s self-serving statement—after trial, conviction, and sentence—that with competent advice he or she would have accepted [or rejected] a proffered plea bargain, is insufficient in and of itself to sustain the defendant’s burden of proof as to prejudice, and must be corroborated independently by objective evidence.” With no such evidence in the record, the Court declined to vacate the trial court's judgment.

People v. M.C.

Docket: B304097(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: Kenneth R. Yegan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

Defendant appealed the trial court's decision sustaining a petition for first degree burglary with a person present, contending that the trial court erred in denying his Brady/Johnson motion for an in camera review and discovery of the arresting officer's confidential personnel file. In People v. Galan (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 6, the Court of Appeal upheld the denial of a motion to inspect the confidential personnel file of a police officer. The court held that there, as here, there was no good cause for discovery. In this case, defendant cites no authority, and the court has found none, that a Brady/Johnson motion may be used as a fishing expedition to disclose confidential personnel files that have no logical link to the 911 call, the arrest, the charges, a defense, or the impeachment of a witness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Ko v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.

Docket: B293672(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 23, 2020

Judge: Feuer

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

Plaintiffs filed suit against Maxim and Defendant Manalastas, alleging claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claiming that Manalastas, a vocational nurse employed by Maxim who worked as an in-home caregiver for plaintiffs' disabled son Landon, abused Landon while plaintiffs were out of the house. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment of dismissal, holding that plaintiffs' "virtual presence" during Landon's abuse, through real time livestream video on a smartphone from a "nanny cam," satisfies the requirement in Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 668, of contemporaneous presence. The court explained that, in the three decades since the Supreme Court decided Thing, technology for virtual presence has developed dramatically, such that it is now common for families to experience events as they unfold through the livestreaming of video and audio. Furthermore, recognition of an NIED claim where a person uses modern technology to contemporaneously perceive an event causing injury to a close family member is consistent with the Supreme Court's requirements for NIED liability and the court's desire to establish a bright-line test for bystander recovery. The court remanded for further proceedings.