6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/09/01 - Sep 01, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/09/01

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 7m 8 chapters transcribed 21 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural steps does the Sixth District Court follow at the start of an oral argument?

Melissa Meth 2:24

Alright. District is now in session.

Cynthia C. Lee 2:28

Acting Presidential Justice, the Honorable Cynthia C. Lee. Associate Justice, the Honorable Charles E. Wilson. Associate Justice, the Honorable. Good morning, everyone. Please have a seat.

Cynthia C. Lee 2:52

Please just give us a moment while we're getting situated. But welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal. We have a short calendar today. And I'm just gonna take the call the cases One by one then as they arise.

Cynthia C. Lee 3:18

When I do take your appearances though, I am gonna ask you to uh state your appearances from the lectern because we are live streaming and recording and so we wanna make sure that uh for the benefit of anybody uh observing that uh we capture that. And um I'll also just note for those of you in the audience, uh we do have a remote appearance on the second matter on calendar and because of that if you're in the audience you won't have a visual of the uh remote appearance, but you can observe that from the lobby if you'd like. So with that why don't I call the first matter which is H zero five three one nine seven the people versus Ричард Antonio Vasquez.

Jean Varobev 4:09

Good morning, your honors. May it please the court. Jean Varobev on behalf of Mr. Vasquez.

Cynthia C. Lee 4:14

Thank you, Mr. Vero Varobev. Um You wanted to split your time twelve and three?

Jean Varobev 4:20

Uh yes,

Cynthia C. Lee 4:20

yes, uh Your Honor. Okay. Thank you very much. And for the people?

Melissa Meth 4:25

Good morning, Your Honors Melissa Meth for respondent.

Cynthia C. Lee 4:28

All right, thank you very much. And so with that uh Council, please proceed.

Jean Varobev 4:35

In this case the trial court admitted uh Doctor Vickerman's conclusion about my client's state of mind at the time of the homicide, but excluded the basis, the actual underlying materials supporting that opinion. while that ruling is correct under people v Sanchez It is a violation of my client's federal due process right to present a complete defense. In addition, there is a preservation dispute between the party. So counsel

Unknown 5:06

before you proceed, and I I appreciate your argument, uh we've reviewed your your briefs. I guess my first question to you, as is critical in all of our opinions, what is our standard of review for what the purported error you claim to be

Jean Varobev 5:24

is? It's de novo on the legal issue of whether uh the state rule in question in this case should not be implied in favor of the federal due process, right? To present a complete defense. The general evidentiary standard is a abuse of discretion, but for the for the narrow question that we present whether in this case Sanchez must give way to the federal due process is de novo.

Unknown 5:53

Have you are there any other cases that support your s your position? that we are for an issue like this as relates to what the court excluded as a evidentiary issue, that we go directly to a uh constitutional uh review uh for the purposes of this eleven seventy two point six here.

Jean Varobev 6:15

Well, the federal cases are the Chambers Rock V Arkansas uh type of cases and it has been applied in California. I think one of the cases is and maybe Anderson, I think it was cited in the briefing. So I mean it's not obviously not unprecedented that a California court considers whether An otherwise valid evidential rule must in a particular set of facts give way to.

Unknown 6:41

But the cases that you cited are criminal trials, not eleven seventy two point six hearings. And that's the distinction I'd like for you to help me connect. Uh you know, I'm very we're very familiar with many of these concepts. uh within criminal trials but we're now talking about an ameliorative scheme. Prepare uh passed by the legislature. Right. And so how how do

Jean Varobev 7:10

these things apply equally? Well, I think the due process clause applies even in a lesser context than a criminal trial. I know there you know, in similar situations, uh the courts in California have held that while full panoply of trial rights does not apply in in a proceeding other than a trial, they're still governed by the due process basic fairness uh protections. So I think to that extent the federal due process clause does apply Two and eleven seventy two point six percent.

Unknown 7:47

But there's no other case currently