6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/08/04 Morning Session - Aug 04, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/08/04 Morning Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 2h 23m 8 chapters transcribed 10 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What announcements and procedural matters are covered at the start of the hearing?

Unknown 3:04

Good morning. Please be seated. Welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for Oral Argument this morning. We have three matters on calendar this morning. There will be panel changes between the cases. Let me make a couple of announcements before we start. We are pleased to be able to offer remote appearances to council or litigants who for one reason or another, decide that they don't want to come into a courtroom. But for those of you who are sitting in the audience, you will not be able to see those parties. So if you wish to have both the audio and the visual experience, you're welcome to go to the waiting room where we have a live stream, and you'd have the opportunity to both see and hear. Of course, if you're at council table, we have devices and we do hear on the bench as well, so we can see anyone who's appearing remotely.

Unknown 3:58

Since we're discussing technology, I'll also mention that the justices have our laptops up here on the bench. We have the opportunity to be able to see the briefs, the record, our own notes, anything that we need. So if you see us looking off to the right, you'll know that's what we're accessing. Give us just a minute to get situated, and we will call the calendar.

Unknown 4:29

First matter on calendar is H052932, the people plaintiff and respondent versus Ralph Silas Cox, defendant and appellant. If I could have counsel appear for appellant, please.

4:42

Thank you, Your Honor.

Unknown 4:43

I'm going to have you go to the podium. Everything's audio recorded.

Randall Connor 4:47

Thank you, Your Honor. Randall Connor for appellant, Ralph Cox.

Unknown 4:50

All right. Confirm your time estimate, ten minutes to open, five for rebuttal?

Randall Connor 4:53

Yes, thank

Unknown 4:54

you. Right. Thank you, Mr. Connor. And appearing for the Attorney General's office this morning.

Kaya Taylor Von Berg 5:02

Good morning, Your Honors. Kaya Taylor Von Berg, Certified Law Student, appearing under the supervision of Deputy Attorney General Kristen Somerville on behalf of Respondent Attorney General.

Unknown 5:13

Welcome, and you're estimating 15 minutes?

Kaya Taylor Von Berg 5:16

Yes, Your Honor.

Unknown 5:17

All right, thank you very much, and welcome, Ms. Somerville, as well. Thank you. All right, let's turn to Mr. Conner. We're interested to hear your comments

Randall Connor 5:23

this morning. Well, I can start with what I think is the most interesting thing about this case, and that is that the judge did take a couple pages, but he did end up saying two things that I think are of real importance here. Number one, as he said, and I'm just going to quote, the bottom line is the court is finding that this declaration should not be admitted because it really does essentially nullify that which we know about what took place at the time they announced their verdict, the polling affirming the verdict. That's at 7RT 1831. And that just has to be wrong. By definition, it has to be wrong because whenever there is a case of this nature on appeal, it means there was a verdict. So the fact that there was a verdict can't be the basis for not admitting the declaration that's providing the basis for the claim that there should be a mistrial.

Randall Connor 6:22

I think Mr.

Unknown 6:24

Conner, though, really wouldn't it be fair to say that this whole area is fraught a bit because of the long tradition of respecting jury verdicts and the judicial reluctance to start proceedings. putting our fingers in the pie, essentially. So the question is, where is that line? And I think it would be helpful to us for you to explain where you think that line is in this particular case and what the standard should be.

Randall Connor 6:56

Well, I think the line... That was compound, I'm sorry. Yes. I mean, I think the very first question in the analysis is whether the defendant has brought forth any evidence at all that is admissible. If there's no admissible evidence of misconduct, then the claim should be denied. Now here, what the judge found was that I don't even have to get to the merits of your claim because I'm not admitting your declaration. You have no evidence of misconduct because I'm not admitting the declaration. And I think what you have here in the court's remarks is a clear statement or a clear quote, that there is error here because he refused to admit the declaration for a reason that's not legally correct.