Jones

People v. Jones

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 771·66 Cal. App. 4th 760·78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 265·98 Daily Journal DAR 9775·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7097
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 9, 1998E019322California3,141 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richli, J.

After defendant Cotton Joe Jones (defendant) was convicted of murder, we granted his petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the trial court had erroneously denied his request to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [ 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 ].

Defendant was not returned to court until 11 days before the 60-day statutory deadline for retrial. (Pen. Code, § 1382.) He was thereupon allowed to represent himself. Nevertheless, after a second trial, he was convicted of murder again.

In the published portion of our opinion, we consider defendant’s contention that the testimony of certain witnesses from his first trial was inadmissible under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule because, having been denied his right to represent himself at his first trial, he never had the opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses personally. We will hold defendant’s opportunity to cross-examine, albeit through his appointed counsel, at the first trial was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of both the former testimony exception and the federal and state confrontation clauses. We will also hold the violation of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.