Legal Opinion

People v. Superior Court (Perry)

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 24, 1989No. E006577PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HOLLENHORST, J.

In a letter to counsel for Perry, Hixon, and Greene, real parties in interest, the district attorney advised he had granted “limited use immunity” to the trio in expectation of their forthcoming testimony before the grand jury.

Mr. Polis responded that his clients would assert their Fifth Amendment rights notwithstanding the People’s grant of immunity. At the scheduled grand jury hearing, real parties did in fact assert their rights under the Fifth Amendment and declined to answer any questions. The People filed a motion to compel testimony in the superior court. The…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. People v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Daly v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  3. In Re WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Tarantino v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  5. People v. SutterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. St. JosephCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  2. People v. C.S.A.California Court of Appeal · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API