BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//JudicialCouncil//NONSGML v1.0//EN
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:event12577@trial.court
DTSTAMP:20260526T120856Z
DTSTART:20210302T170000Z
DTEND:20210302T200000Z
SUMMARY:Supreme Court Oral Arguments for March 2, 2021
DESCRIPTION:(Click the play icon) To view with the case information, visit here [1]
 */All opinions are now posted./*
  
 {"preview_thumbnail":"/sites/default/files/newsroom/styles/video_embed_wysiwyg_preview/public/video_thumbnails/1978.jpg?itok=kEZ7Pwxi","video_url":"https://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/1978?view_id=12&redirect=true","settings":{"responsive":1,"width":"854","height":"480","autoplay":0},"settings_summary":["Embedded
 Video (Responsive)."]}
  
 /*(1) In re Caden C.,*/ */S255839/* [2]
 /*View Argument* [3]/ | /*Opinion filed 5-27-21*/ [4]
 The court limited review to the following issues:  (1) What standard of
 review governs appellate review of the beneficial parental relationship
 exception to adoption? (2) Is a showing that a parent has made progress in
 addressing the issues that led to dependency necessary to meet the beneficial
 parental relationship exception? 
 /*(2)  */*/People v. Lemcke (Desirae Lee) et al., S250108 [5]
 View Argument [6] | Opinion filed 5-27-21 [7]/*
 This case presents the following issue:  Does instructing a jury with
 CALCRIM No. 315 that an eyewitness’s level of certainty can be considered
 when evaluating the reliability of the identification violate a defendant’s
 due process rights? 
 /*(3)  */*/People v. Scully (Robert Walter), /**/[Automatic Appeal], S062259
 [8]
 View Argument [9] | Opinion filed 5-24-21  [10]/*
 This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
 [1] https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjcc.granicus.com%2FDocumentViewer.php%3Ffile%3Djcc_0c2f74c2f6e9bd57c7e5c3871fb288ee.pdf%26view%3D1&embedded=true
 [2] https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2286551&doc_no=S255839&request_token=NiIwLSEmTkw9WyBJSCM9TENIMEg0UDxTJiNOJzlRICAgCg%3D%3D
 [3] https://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/1978?meta_id=59753
 [4] https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S255839.PDF
 [5] https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2257737&doc_no=S250108&request_token=NiIwLSEmTkw9WyBJSCM9SE9IUEA0UDxTJiJeQzpRMCAgCg%3D%3D
 [6] https://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/1978?meta_id=59755
 [7] https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S250108.PDF
 [8] https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1794001&doc_no=S062259&request_token=NiIwLSEmTkw9WyBJSCM9SE9JUEQ0UDxbJSI%2BTz9RICAgCg%3D%3D
 [9] https://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/1978?meta_id=59756
 [10] https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S062259M.PDF
X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:<p><span><span><span><span><span>(Click the play icon) To view with the case information,&nbsp;</span><a href="https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjcc.granicus.com%2FDocumentViewer.php%3Ffile%3Djcc_0c2f74c2f6e9bd57c7e5c3871fb288ee.pdf%26view%3D1&amp;embedded=true"><span>visit here</span></a></span></span></span></span></p>
 <p><span><span><b><i>All opinions are now posted.</i></b></span></span></p>
 <p>&nbsp;</p>
 <p>{"preview_thumbnail":"/sites/default/files/newsroom/styles/video_embed_wysiwyg_preview/public/video_thumbnails/1978.jpg?itok=kEZ7Pwxi","video_url":"https://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/1978?view_id=12&amp;redirect=true","settings":{"responsive":1,"width":"854","height":"480","autoplay":0},"settings_summary":["Embedded Video (Responsive)."]}</p>
 <p>&nbsp;</p>
 <p><em><strong>(1) In re Caden C.,</strong></em> <a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2286551&amp;doc_no=S255839&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmTkw9WyBJSCM9TENIMEg0UDxTJiNOJzlRICAgCg%3D%3D"><b><i><span>S255839</span></i></b></a><br />
 <em><a href="https://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/1978?meta_id=59753"><strong>View Argument</strong></a></em> | <a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S255839.PDF"><em><strong>Opinion filed 5-27-21</strong></em></a></p>
 <p>The court limited review to the following issues:&nbsp; (1) What standard of review governs appellate review of the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption? (2) Is a showing that a parent has made progress in addressing the issues that led to dependency necessary to meet the beneficial parental relationship exception?&nbsp;</p>
 <p><span><span><span><em><strong>(2)&nbsp; </strong></em><b><i>People v. Lemcke (Desirae Lee) et al., <a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=2257737&amp;doc_no=S250108&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmTkw9WyBJSCM9SE9IUEA0UDxTJiJeQzpRMCAgCg%3D%3D">S250108</a><br />
 <a href="https://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/1978?meta_id=59755">View Argument</a> | <a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S250108.PDF">Opinion filed 5-27-21</a></i></b></span></span></span></p>
 <p>This case presents the following issue:&nbsp; Does instructing a jury with CALCRIM No. 315 that an eyewitness’s level of certainty can be considered when evaluating the reliability of the identification violate a defendant’s due process rights?&nbsp;</p>
 <p><span><span><span><span><em><strong>(3)&nbsp; </strong></em><b><i>People v. Scully (Robert Walter), </i></b></span></span><b><i><span>[Automatic Appeal], <span><a href="https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&amp;doc_id=1794001&amp;doc_no=S062259&amp;request_token=NiIwLSEmTkw9WyBJSCM9SE9JUEQ0UDxbJSI%2BTz9RICAgCg%3D%3D">S062259</a><br />
 <a href="https://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/1978?meta_id=59756">View Argument</a> | <a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S062259M.PDF">Opinion filed 5-24-21&nbsp;</a></span></span></i></b></span></span></p>
 <p>This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.</p>
LOCATION:
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR