Can a court's frustration and irritation at counsel's repeated efforts to violate evidentiary rules be viewed as "friction between court and counsel"?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Nieves, 11 Cal.5th 404, 278 Cal.Rptr.3d 40, 485 P.3d 457 (Cal. 2021):

A trial court's "frustration and irritation at counsel's repeated efforts" to violate evidentiary rules can be viewed as " friction between court and counsel, [that] while not desirable, [is] virtually inevitable in a long trial. [Citation.]" ( People v. Blacksher (2011) 52 Cal.4th 769, 825, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 191, 259 P.3d 370.) Furthermore, "isolated comments in a lengthy trial in which the court exhibited some impatience with counsel's argumentative

[11 Cal.5th 483]

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.

Other Questions

Does the "right ruling, wrong reasoning" rule apply to an evidentiary ruling that required the trial court to make findings of fact? (California, United States of America)

When assessing ineffective assistance of counsel, how do courts view counsel's actions? (California, United States of America)

Does section 7895 of the California Family Code require an appellate court to appoint counsel for a parent unable to afford counsel for their child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court? (California, United States of America)

How does the Court of Appeal interpret the evidentiary rulings of the Superior Court of Justice? (California, United States of America)

How have courts reviewed the evidentiary rulings of a trial court? (California, United States of America)

How have the courts interpreted the evidentiary rulings of a trial court? (California, United States of America)

Does a defendant have to prove that his trial counsel's stipulation to vacate the court's ruling amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel? (California, United States of America)

Does a juvenile court's evidentiary ruling that a minor is not a violation of her constitutional rights or an abuse of discretion? (California, United States of America)

Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)

If counsel discovered that the burglary had been reduced to a misdemeanor, and lodged an objection below, would counsel have discovered that counsel had discovered that Counsel had discovered it was a misdemeanor? (California, United States of America)

Can a court's frustration and irritation at counsel's repeated efforts to violate evidentiary rules be viewed as "friction between court and counsel"?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources