People v. Mar
California Supreme Court
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
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Washington v. HarperSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- People v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Riggins v. NevadaSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by87 opinions
- People v. Bryant, Smith and WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- People v. GamacheCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- People v. Letner and TobinCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- People v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 2004
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.