Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Hedgecock

California Supreme Court

Decided September 6, 1990No. S005882Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

EAGLESON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in part B of the majority opinion and the disposition thereunder: reverse and remand for the trial court to exercise discretion to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve the juror misconduct claim and, if so, whether jurors should be subpoenaed to testify at such a hearing. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 411-421.)

1 respectfully dissent from the analysis and conclusions reached in part A of the majority opinion, which holds that the materiality element of the offense of perjury, when prosecuted pursuant to the Political…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

45 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