People v. Mooring, et al.

No. A143470; 15 Cal.App.5th 928 (opn 9/27/2017, mod 10/23/2017, rev den 1/17/2018)

Year: 2017
Errors: Facts: Error/Omission
Court: 1st District, Div 5
Errors Found/Argued: Errors not found by another court

Summary: A chemist looked at photos of prescription pills on “Ident-a-Drug” and said they were a “presumptive match.” No chemical test was done, and there was no expert testimony that the pills were controlled substances. The Court of Appeal was satisfied with the photos, in part because the chemist [Meldrum] also “did not think the pills were counterfeit.” (Slip opinion, p. 4; see also p. 21: she “testified she did not believe the pills were counterfeit.” The Attorney General had made the same assertions in the respondent’s brief. But there was no such testimony. Instead, Meldrum testified, “I don’t know with any certainty that any of these are not counterfeit pills because I did not do a chemical analysis.” And: “[I]t is important to express those are not — just because those features aren’t there, doesn’t mean the pill isn’t counterfeit.” And: “I’m unable to visually look at a tablet and say with any certainty that it’s a legitimate or counterfeit pill, no.” And: The Internet wouldn’t help, because such a determination “would require chemical analysis.” And: She “can’t be certain what’s in the pills without actually performing any confirmatory tests.” (See Petition for Review, pp. 21-23, including detailed transcript quotations.)

Document links:
Court of Appeal Opinion (Google Scholar)
Modification Order (Google Scholar)
Court of Appeal Opinion & modification order (PDF)
Petition for Review (PDF)

People v. Sanders

No. A142875 (opn 9/29/2016, mod 10/19/16, rev den 12/14/2016)

Year: 2016
Errors: Facts: Error/Omission
Court: 1st District, Div 5
Errors Found/Argued: Errors not found by another court

Summary: Court of Appeal regarded record deferentially with respect to the facts as a general rule of appellate procedure, inappropriate in the context of the issues on appeal. (See arg. I in petition for review.) The error was material, because appellant was convicted of 40-something counts of robbery arising from a dozen incidents over the court of several months’ time. He was labelled the “chrome revolver bandit” because though no one could ID him, they often (but not always) remembered the big Dirty Harry style revolver used by the culprit. The circumstantial evidence in the record was rife with gaps, and confidence in the outcome — a key fact in prejudice assessment — should have taken these gaps into consideration, rather than deferring them away.

Document links:
Court of Appeal Opinion w/modification (Google Scholar) 
Court of Appeal Opinion (PDF)
Petition for Rehearing (PDF)
Petition for Review (PDF)

General Nanotechnology, LLC v. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC

No. A129016/A129428 (opn 6/27/2012, rev den 9/12/2012)

Year: 2012
Errors: Facts: Error/Omission
Court: 1st District, Division 5
Errors Found/Argued: Errors not found by another court

Summary: For decades, a program at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (“LLNS”) has been trying to use various materials to create the tiny, precise capsules that are critical to the production of energy through fusion. Plaintiffs disclosed proprietary information about diamond technology to LLNS as part of an attempt to obtain a contract from LLNS to produce the capsules out of diamond. LLNS severed relations with plaintiffs in October 2004, claiming there was no funding for their work. Petitioners did not file suit immediately, but did so after discovering facts in July 2007, that led them to believe that LLNS had been using their proprietary information in an attempt to produce diamond capsules with a foreign entity.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication against plaintiffs on their misappropriation and fraud causes of action, determining that the statute of limitations began to run in November 2004, when one of the plaintiffs saw a document from LLNS regarding diamond capsules. The Court of Appeal found that this document provided notice of the misappropriation claim to plaintiffs, rejecting as “unreasonable” plaintiffs’ testimony that the document referred to LLNS’s former plans to develop diamond capsules with the plaintiffs themselves, not to any attempt to develop diamond capsules with the foreign entity. Testimony from the document’s author confirmed that plaintiff’s interpretation was not only reasonable but correct – the document referred only to LLNS’s former plans to develop the capsules with plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal held that there was no need to consider whether petitioners could have conducted any further investigation into the facts because, using its interpretation, the document by itself provided a sufficient factual basis to file suit immediately.

Document Links:
Court of Appeal Opinion (PDF)
Court of Appeal Opinion (Google Scholar)
Petition for Rehearing
Petition for Review (see pp 15-17, 22-23)