The El Dorado County, Superior Court (California), sentenced defendant to death for the first-degree murders of three teenage girls with the special circumstance of multiple murder. Defendant's appeal was automatic. There are best disability discrimination defenses In California.

In a murder case, the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel, as there was no conflict of interest in public defender's office's prior representation of four witnesses in unrelated cases. Also, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by introducing evidence of polygraph examination or in his comments regarding witness protection that was potentially misleading. However, even if evidence of the polygraph examination was improperly admitted, the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor's question. Additionally, the evidence that one of the murdered girls and a witness feared the defendant was admissible. In addition, because the trial court properly instructed the jurors to disregard prejudicial evidence that was improperly admitted, the defendant's motion for mistrial was properly denied. Furthermore, in the penalty phase of the trial, the trial court properly instructed the jury regarding the imposition of a death sentence. Further, the defendant's death sentence was not disproportionate to his personal culpability for the murders of the three teenaged girls. Therefore, defendant's sentence was not cruel or unusual punishment.
The appellate court affirmed defendant's murder convictions and death sentence.

Plaintiff attorneys sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which sustained the demurrer of defendants, clients and tortfeasor's insurer, in the attorney's action alleging that agents of the insurer interfered with the contractual relation between the attorneys and their clients.

The clients were injured in an auto collision with the tortfeasor. The plaintiffs alleged that they had agreed contractually to represent the clients in the clients' action against the tortfeasor, and that pursuant to that agreement, the clients would pay certain costs and would pay the attorneys as their fee a third of a pre-trial settlement or 40 percent of the amount recovered at trial. The attorneys further alleged that the clients had agreed not to settle their claim with the tortfeasor except with the consent of the attorneys. The attorneys prepared the case and expended money thereon, but the clients proceeded to settle secretly with the tortfeasor's insurer without the attorney's consent. The attorneys filed an action against the clients and the agents of the insurer, alleging interference with the contractual relation between attorney and client. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer and the attorneys appealed. The court found that the state supreme court had held under substantially similar circumstances that a demurrer in such a case should be overruled. The court concluded that the supreme court's holding was dispositive of the case before the court.

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court that had sustained defendants' demurrer. The court directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer.