Latest Case: People v. Armando Garcia (Criminal Law)

Pope Francis’s Statement Endorsing Same-Sex Civil Unions Undermines the Moral Legitimacy and Legal Arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

DAVID S. KEMP, CHARLES E. BINKLEY

David S. Kemp, a professor at Berkeley Law, and Charles E. Binkley, MD, the director of bioethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, consider the implications of Pope Francis’s recently revealed statement endorsing same-sex civil unions as they pertain to a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Kemp and Binkley argue that the Pope’s statement undermines the moral legitimacy of the Catholic organization’s position and casts a shadow on the premise of its legal arguments.

Read More

Stigma and the Oral Argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

LESLIE C. GRIFFIN

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin explains why stigma is a central concept that came up during oral argument before the Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Griffin points out that some religions have long supported racial discrimination, citing their religious texts, but courts prohibited such discrimination, even by religious entities. Griffin argues that just as religious organizations should not enjoy religious freedom to stigmatize people of color, so they should not be able to discriminate—and thus stigmatize—people based on sexual orientation.

Read More

People v. Armando Garcia

Docket: B300163(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 4, 2020

Judge: Kenneth R. Yegan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In determining whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under Penal Code section 1170.95, the courts should not ignore the evidence in the record of conviction that shows the petitioner is ineligible for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the petition to vacate appellant's second degree murder conviction under section 1170.95. The court held that the trial court properly considered the statement of facts in its 2001 opinion; the absence of a jury instruction on murder based on a theory of direct aiding and abetting does not mean that appellant could not presently be convicted of murder under this theory; and appellant failed to make a prima face showing that he could not be convicted of second degree murder. The court explained that where, as here, the record of conviction contains substantial evidence based on which a reasonable trier of fact could presently find petitioner guilty of murder despite the changes made by S.B. 1437, it would be a waste of judicial resources to require a full-blown evidentiary hearing at which the court may rely on the record of conviction. Therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing.