6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/02/03 Afternoon Session - Feb 03, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/02/03 Afternoon Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 23m 8 chapters transcribed 9 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What announcements and technology updates does the court provide at the start of the session?

Unknown 5:09

Thank you.

Mary Jane Middleton 5:48

the Honorable Mary Jane Middleton, Associate Justice, the Honorable Adrian M. Grover, and Associate Justice, the Honorable Cynthia C. Lee.

Unknown 6:00

Welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for Oral Argument this afternoon. Please be seated. We have two matters on calendar this afternoon. And let me make just a couple of quick announcements before we commence, both related to technology. The first is that it's our pleasure to be able to offer remote appearances to self-represented litigants or counsel who find that useful. And there is at least one person appearing remotely today. For a council who are sitting at the table, they have devices so they can see whoever is appearing remotely. We do as well. If you're sitting in the audience, however, you will be able to hear everything that happens, but you won't be able to see it. And if you want both the visual and the audio experience, you can step into the waiting room outside the doors there, and we have a live stream so you can see both.

Unknown 7:00

And in addition, once argument is completed, we archive it on our website. And there you would both see and hear everything that has occurred during the oral argument. But you will be able to hear. The second thing related to technology is that the justices have their laptops up here on the bench. And so you'll see us looking off to the right. We have the briefs, the record, our own notes. Everything we need is up here. So don't be surprised if you see that happen. There are two cases on calendar this afternoon, and there will be a change of panel or a partial change of panel after the first case. The first case is H051613, the people, plaintiff and respondent, versus Gabriel Porfirio Lopez, defendant and appellant.

Unknown 7:46

If I could have counsel's appearance for appellant first, and then I'll take respondent. And I need everything to happen at the microphone because we record. Thank you.

Alexi Haller 7:56

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Alexi Howler, appearing on behalf of defendant appellant Gabrielle Lopez.

Unknown 8:01

All right. Thank you, Mr. Howler. And your time estimate is 10 minutes to open, five for rebuttal?

Alexi Haller 8:07

Exactly, Your Honor. Thank you. All

Unknown 8:08

right. Thank you very much. Appearing for the Attorney General today. Good afternoon, Your Honors. Christine Ofer, respondent. All right. And your time estimate is 15 minutes. Yes, Your Honor. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Howler. We are interested to hear your comments today. Thank you. We'll let you start.

Alexi Haller 8:26

Thank you. May it please the court, Alexi Haller, as I mentioned, appearing on behalf of defendant appellant Gabrielle Lopez. I would like to focus on the Miranda claim, and specifically the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the confession that occurred on the driveway. Respondent concedes that this was an interrogation on the driveway, and respondent also concedes that there was no Miranda warning given. There are 13 factors. So the remaining issue is really custody under the 13 factors set forth in People versus Aguilera. And as to six of those 13 factors, respondent also concedes that they are present here. So we've got the contact initiated by police. The express purpose was to question Mr. Lopez as a suspect.

Alexi Haller 9:14

Mr. Lopez was not informed that he was free to leave. The officers dominated and controlled the interrogation. They manifested a belief that he was guilty. culpable and had evidence to prove it, and the questioning was accusatory. So we have six conceded, and then three more factors I think are established without really any serious dispute. Mr. Lopez was arrested at the end of the interrogation. The officers used interrogation techniques as set forth in the opening brief, and the ratio of officers to Mr. Lopez was four to one. So that's nine of the 13 factors. that are present here with regard to the custody analysis. So the remaining factors are location, length of the interrogation, whether he was informed of arrest and restrictions on movement.

Alexi Haller 10:04

And so I'm happy to address any of those in more detail, but I can go through them briefly now if the court would like.