Legal Opinion

People v. Mar

California Supreme Court

Decided September 11, 2002No. S086611PublishedCited by 87 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GEORGE, C. J.

In this case we must determine under what circumstances a defendant in a criminal trial in California may be required, as a security measure, to wear a remote-controlled electronic “stun belt”—a device that, in its current design, delivers an eight-second-long, 50,000-volt, debilitating electric shock when activated by a transmitter controlled by a court security officer. The Courts of Appeal have reached conflicting conclusions with regard to whether the principles set forth in this court’s decision in People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282 [127 Cal.Rptr. 618, 545 P.2d…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Washington v. HarperSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. People v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. Riggins v. NevadaSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by87 opinions

  1. People v. Bryant, Smith and WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  2. People v. GamacheCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  3. People v. Letner and TobinCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  4. People v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 2004

82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API