₦airaland Forum

Procedural Posture

Petitioner attorneys sought a writ of mandamus to set aside an order from the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which denied their motion to strike portions of respondent client's complaint for professional negligence.

Overview

Respondent client filed an action against petitioner attorneys, seeking damages for professional negligence. About the law PC 288 Child Molestation they moved. Petitioners moved to strike the allegations seeking recovery for excessive litigation expenses, emotional distress, loss of income, punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs. The trial court struck the portion of the complaint seeking recovery of attorney fees, but denied petitioners' request to strike the remaining damage allegations. Petitioners then sought a writ of mandamus to set aside the trial court's order denying their request to strike the remaining allegations. The court granted the writ and directed the trial court to vacate its order on petitioners' motion to strike and to enter a new order striking respondent's allegations and prayer for emotional distress damages, loss of income, and punitive damages. The court found that respondent's complaint failed to demonstrate that petitioners acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. The court further found that respondent's complaint did not support the recovery of damages for emotional distress.

Outcome

Petitioner attorneys were granted a writ of mandamus and the trial court was ordered to strike respondent client's allegations and prayer for emotional distress damages, loss of income, and punitive damages. The court found that respondent's complaint failed to demonstrate that petitioners acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

Procedural Posture

A jury for the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) found defendants and a codefendant guilty of robbing and murdering the two victims and of conspiring to commit murder. The jury found the murders to be in the first degree and under the special circumstances of multiple murder and robbery murder. At the conclusion of the penalty trials, the same jury returned a verdict of death as to defendants and codefendant. Defendants appealed.

Overview

Defendants and codefendant were tried together for the victims' murders. However, the punishment phases of the first defendant's trial, and the second defendant and codefendant's trial were separated. The appellate court found that the joint trial did not create the uncertainty over who was the actual killer, and that uncertainty did not require separate trials. Also, the record suggested nonracial reasons for each of the four challenges to potential African-Americans jurors. Additionally, although defendants objected to how the trial court conducted voir dire, the jury selection in their case was far from fundamentally unfair. Moreover, there was no violation of defendants' right to be present during their trial as they were present whenever their presence bore any substantial relation to their ability to defend fully against the charges. In addition, the first defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Further, sealing the first verdict in the penalty phase of the trial to announce both verdicts at the same time did not violate any of the first defendant's rights. Finally, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to modify defendants' death verdicts.

Outcome

The supreme court affirmed the trial court's judgments.