S.D. Police Dep't v. Geoffrey S. Hearsay is OK in GVRO

[BobB35]

Hearsay evidence is now OK in GVRO decisions. Seems slippery to me.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/19.../#more-8216109

[pacrat]

"Considering the fact that the purpose of the [GVRO] statute is to prevent [gun] violence …, the expedited nature of the proceeding contemplated by the statute, and the Legislature's directive that the trial court shall receive [any evidence of an increased risk for violence] without qualification,
we conclude that the [evidence] that a trial court may consider in making a ruling on a petition pursuant to [the GVRO statute] is not limited to nonhearsay [evidence]."
Accordingly, we hold that hearsay evidence is admissible in a GVRO hearing under section 18175. At the same time, we caution that courts must bear in mind "the potential unreliability of hearsay evidence, … when weighing all of the evidence presented."
…

Clearly another left leaning Ca. activist court decision.
Rather than correct the malfeasance of the legislature in overstepping constitutional boundaries on enumerated rights violations. They use the 'if it saves one life" crock of crap spiel of the left, as justification to trample citizens rights.

As to the underlined; Ignoring other Ca courts propensity, to do exactly what they themselves are doing.

As to the referral to sect 18175. More Ca Legislature and activist court ButtCovering. Which includes as justification for removal of 2A rights. This little bit of legislative excrement.

https://law.justia.com/codes/califor...section-18155/

(G) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons.

Making it clear that the legislature is sanctioning the removal of a citizen's 2A rights. For committing the crime of "recently acquiring".

So if a citizen exercises their 2A right, by acquiring a firearm. That is justification for a Turd in a Robe, to strip them of their 2A rights. Based on hearsay.

[smoothy8500]

Reading the article, the court says he had the opportunity to cross-examine the "hearsay" evidence and refused.

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by smoothy8500

Reading the article, the court says he had the opportunity to cross-examine the "hearsay" evidence and refused.

You really shouldn’t have to cross examine hearsay evidence, it shouldn’t be admissible.

[johncage]

Originally Posted by smoothy8500

Reading the article, the court says he had the opportunity to cross-examine the "hearsay" evidence and refused.

kangaroo courts are decided in advance and a waste of time/torture sessions for the persecuted. he probably wanted to get it over with and move on to the next step.

[p7m8jg]

California already allows a TON of hearsay evidence into petition hearings to restore gun rights under 8103(f) W&I when a person was committed under 5150 W&I as a danger to self or others (DTSO). Police reports, medical records, rap sheets, statements by other family members not present at the hearing, etc. are all admissible.

It's been upheld by the Courts of Appeal so far. The reasoning, right or wrong, is that the 5 year firearms/weapons prohibition under 8103 does not implicate the 2nd Amendment.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by p7m8jg

California already allows a TON of hearsay evidence into petition hearings to restore gun rights under 8103(f) W&I when a person was committed under 5150 W&I as a danger to self or others (DTSO). Police reports, medical records, rap sheets, statements by other family members not present at the hearing, etc. are all admissible.

It's been upheld by the Courts of Appeal so far. The reasoning, right or wrong, is that the 5 year firearms/weapons prohibition under 8103 does not implicate the 2nd Amendment.

short snip from the middle of the 6th Amendment.

to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

The accusers have no such enumerated "right". Even though counsel for the accusers, prosecutors, are allowed to "cross examine" witnesses called for defense.

So if the accused in such cases as you mention, choose not to confront the writers of such reports, records, affidavits, because they are supportive of their circumstances. That is their choice.

IANAL, so if my premise is faulty. Please set me straight.