In today’s opinion, the Ninth Circuit vacates two counts of interstate solicitation in a murder-for-hire plot, for which the defendant (James Hendrikson) was sentenced to two 20-year terms of imprisonment back in 2016. One might facially think that’s a big deal — 40 less years in prison.
…
Let me see if I have this right.A married couple has a trust in which they’ve placed all their community property, but then — after 48 (!) years of marriage, if my calculations are correct — Wife files for divorce. Promptly thereafter, as part of the dissolution proceedings, Wife revokes (as permitted by the trust)…
It’s the summer doldrums on the California appellate side, so there hasn’t been much for a bit. Today does, however, see this opinion by the Ninth Circuit, and I appreciated what Judge Bress did here.
…
“It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 4, 2026 be
modified as follows: on page 9 in the last paragraph, second sentence
delete ‘witness’ and replace with ‘victim’.”Yep. Those are indeed different.
This opinion certainly meets the criteria for (admittedly belated) publication.In 2002, a then-15 years old gets convicted of (alongside his 18-year old accomplice) “robb[ing] the victim and her boyfriend, kidnapp[ing] the
victim at gunpoint, and t[aking] turns raping her.” He gets sentenced to 50 years in prison.In 2024, the defendant (Jarvis Garner) petitions to be…
Oops.
I wish I could recommend an opinion today that was profoundly worth general reading, but no such luck (at least yet).In the meantime, if you want to read something extremely erudite — yet exhaustively boring — here’s an intricate civil procedure opinion by Justice Evans that should have you riveted. So long as you are…
There’s good news for Quindale Powell in this opinion. Though admittedly not much.In 2008, he’s sentenced to 50 years to life for murder. In 2024, he files a motion in the trial court that says that his sentence contains mistakes. The trial court agrees in part, and gives Mr. Powell . . . two…
Did it really make sense for the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office to bring this appeal?It’s a high-profile matter, and involves the conviction of David DePape for smashing the head of Paul Pelosi, the husband of Nancy Pelosi, during DePape’s attempted kidnapping of Nancy. Shortly before DePape went on trial in state court, he was…
The practical import of today’s opinion by the Court of Appeal is both important and easy to spell out:Don’t represent multiple plaintiffs against the same defendant on the same type of tort without disclosing the potential conflict of interest; otherwise, your engagement agreement, including its arbitration clause, might (as here) be held invalid.Lesson learned.
