Legal Opinion
People v. Barnum
California Supreme Court
Decided March 17, 2003No. S095872PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GEORGE, C. J.
—We granted review to consider a rule, rooted in two Court of Appeal decisions—Killpatrick v. Superior Court (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 146 [314 P.2d 164] (Killpatrick), and People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199 [38 Cal.Rptr. 487] (Kramer)—declaring that a trial court is required to advise a defendant who represents himself or herself of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination before such a defendant is called by the People as a witness in their case-in-chief or testifies in his or her own defense.
The Court of Appeal below rejected the Killpatrick-Kramer rule,…
2Cases cited63 opinions
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- People v. PoseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- People v. RiggsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- People v. SullivanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- In Re SeatonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. JaimeWashington Supreme Court · 2010
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.