Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CA Supreme Court: Film/Book Consulting, Not Conflicts Mandating Recusal
It was prosecutor vindication time at the California Supreme Court in May. In unanimous rulings authored by Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, the state high court held that the Second District Court of Appeal erred when it ordered three deputy district attorneys removed from separate cases each was handling. The ruling chastised the Second District's Ventura branch for failing to grant appropriate deference to a trial court judge's decision that no disqualifying conflict existed for Santa Barbara County prosecutors Joyce Dudley and Ronald Zonen. Justice Werdegar also criticized one of the appellate court's L.A. divisions for punishing Los Angeles County Deputy DA Kenneth Chiu for vigorously trying to block the release of a sexual-abuse victim's medical and psychotherapy records.
All three cases had riveted the Southern California legal world for a couple of years, but the two involving Dudley and Zonen ' both senior deputy DAs ' provided the entertainment value that truly screamed Hollywood. Dudley had been recused for writing 'Intoxicating Agent,' a book that the Second District felt had too many parallels to a rape case she was prosecuting, while Zonen was removed for providing highly sensitive files to producers interested in making a movie about a sensational murder case he had prosecuted. In both instances, the trial court judges had found no reason for disqualifying the prosecutors. The Supreme Court said the trial judges were correct.
'The trial court's role, and the court of appeal's and ours, is to examine the record for evidence of a disqualifying conflict, not to act as literary critic,' Werdegar wrote. 'That a prosecutor may pursue an independent writing career does not alone create a conflict with the public interest and disqualify her from future prosecutions, absent proof her writings create a material conflict in a particular case.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.