This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Judges and Judiciary

Jul. 6, 2005

Defender Finds 'Warrick' Dissent Troubling

Letter to the Editor - I just finished reading Warrick v. Superior Court , 2005 DJDAR 6347, as well as the Daily Journal article in which the case was discussed ("Court's Ruling May Increase In Camera Pitches Reviews," June 10 Daily Journal). In my opinion, the majority not only follows clearly established precedent but also recognizes the practical issues involved in preparing and filing a Pitchess motion.

        Letter to the Editor
        
        I just finished reading Warrick v. Superior Court, 2005 DJDAR 6347, as well as the Daily Journal article in which the case was discussed ("Court's Ruling May Increase In Camera Pitches Reviews," June 10 Daily Journal). In my opinion, the majority not only follows clearly established precede...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up