Leohner

Leohner v. Superior Court CA1/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 2022A164631California5,851 words

Opinion

Opinion

Margulies, J.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Trial Court Proceedings Leohner was trial counsel for defendant Delano Blayze Malang in a criminal proceeding pending in Humboldt County Superior Court. On February 14, 2022, Malang’s jury trial began with Leohner representing him. On February 17, 2022, Leohner was cross-examining Heidi Groszmann, a police officer and prosecution witness, when the court held an Evidence Code1 section 402 hearing (section 402 hearing) to consider whether certain audio portions of body-worn camera videos from three different police officers should be redacted. The court noted the section 402 hearing was as to the “audio of the video. . . . In other words, it’s not so much the video itself, it’s what’s being said on the video that we are talking about.” The prosecution sought to exclude audio portions of the videos that included statements made by bystanders to the officers after Malang was arrested. The prosecutor argued the statements were prejudicial and were irrelevant to whether the officers had probable cause to arrest Malang. Defense Counsel Leohner, on the other hand, sought “to introduce body-worn cameras [sic] full with audio” and argued the jury…

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.