Supreme Court Oral Argument 2026-01 -07 - Jan 07, 2026

argument

Supreme Court Oral Argument 2026-01 -07

Supreme Court of California 2h 56m 1 speaker 7 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the opening statements and case numbers presented at the start of the oral argument?

Daniel John Hilton 0:09

Heardy, hearty, hearty. Donald Supreme Court sitting at Bon is now setting.

Unknown 0:25

Good morning, welcome to oral argument before the California Supreme Court and happy New Year to everybody as well. The clerk may call the calendar. Good morning, the Supreme Court of California here in Royal Games in San Francisco on Wednesday, January seventh, two thousand twenty six at nine thirty AM. Case number A zero nine three Nine four four people plaintiff and responding versus John Anthony Birch and Jeffrey Lee Caronis, defendant appellants. Frappellant, Jeffrey Lee Hironis, Mr. Mark E. Collar. And for appelling, Mr John uh John Anthony Birch, Mr Alex Coleman. For responding, Mr John Powell. Case number S zero nine two six one five, the people plaintiff and responding versus Omar Richard Dean, defendant and appellant for appelling Mr.

Unknown 1:13

A. J. Cutchins. And for responding, Mr. Daniel John Hilton. Okay, thank you. And on this case I'd like to welcome Justice Viramontes, who's assisting us and he's joining us from the second district court of appeal. You may come forward, please, on people versus Mr. Birch and Mr. Haronas.

Mark E. Cutler 1:42

Good morning.

Mark E. Cutler 1:49

Today I will only be arguing claim number five from the opening brief. claim had three separate distinct sub subclaims The initial finding of competence to stand trial The refusal to reinstitute proceedings after a substantial showing of changed circumstances and of new evidence. And the error in allowing Mr Hronus to represent himself at the penalty trial. Of these three subclaims I will concentrate on the second of the three. In regard to the first claim I only have two brief points. One was that the initial finding Was tainted by the application of the wrong standard. А very crucial point that I will return to. in discussing the second part of the claim which was tainted by the same wrong standard. The other point in re in um

Mark E. Cutler 2:59

connection with the first claim is that the initial proceeding was as superficial as it could possibly be. That's another point I will return to. But one I mentioned now not as a reason standing alone to overturn that first finding. But as the setting or context for the erroneous refusal to reinstitute. I also want to note at the outset That the important statutes Here are Penal Code section thirteen sixty seven through thirteen sixty nine. I started out as a trial attorney for five years in a public defender's office and Just got used to calling it all thirteen sixty eight and I've never broken that habit, so whenever I mention any of those three sections I'm actually uh encompassing the contents of all three.

Mark E. Cutler 4:02

So the erroneous refusal to reinstitute proceedings. Very important for the court to recognize at the outset that this court does not need to reach any conclusion. Regarding whether appellant was or was not competent to stand trial. All that this court has to decide is whether appellant was entitled. to a full proceeding to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. In making that determination, this court will help clarify policy that will apply across the board. To all cases in which reinstitution is sought. And in some respects to all cases in which an initial competency competency determination is sought. This is necessary to properly implement the federal constitutional guarantee of due process.

Mark E. Cutler 5:01

of law which has long been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court to preclude the trial of a person who is not competent. Under standards set forth by that court. The state simply has no interest in deciding the guilt of a person who is not competent to stand trial.

Unknown 5:26

Mr. Cutler, can I interrupt just to get to a certain point in time because we're familiar with the facts and the legal standards, but You can address this at some point. I'd like you to focus though on specifically what it was that constitutes a substantial change in circumstances or new evidence from the nineteen ninety-five proceedings to the later proceedings where there was a question about the competency of Mr. Haronas and um specifically it seems to center around Mr. Haronas' religious beliefs.