Navigating Preliminary Hearings in the Age of Proposition 115

Navigating Preliminary Hearings in the Age of Proposition 115

Preliminary hearings in California got a major shakeup in 1990 with the passage of Proposition 115, also known as the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act. This controversial law made big changes to how preliminary hearings work in order to speed up the pretrial process. But what does this mean for defendants and their attorneys? Let’s break it down.

What is a Preliminary Hearing?

First, a quick refresher on what preliminary hearings are. A preliminary hearing is a pretrial hearing where the prosecution must show there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial. It’s a chance for the defense to see some of the prosecution’s evidence early on. If the judge decides there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime, the case moves ahead to trial. If not, the charges are dropped. Preliminary hearings act as a check on the prosecution to prevent baseless charges from going to trial.

How Did Proposition 115 Change Preliminary Hearings?

Prop 115 made three big changes to preliminary hearings in California:

• Allows hearsay evidence from police officers – Police can now testify about out-of-court statements by witnesses and victims. This “hearsay evidence” was not previously allowed.
• Limits time for preliminary hearings – Hearings are now limited to one day for felonies punishable by life in prison, and half a day for other felonies.
• Allows prosecutors to object to defense evidence – Prosecutors can object to defense evidence as irrelevant or hearsay.

The main goal of these changes was to speed up preliminary hearings and reduce the time spent on them. But critics argued the changes weakened due process rights and the ability to challenge unreliable charges.

Police Officer Hearsay Testimony

One of the most controversial parts of Prop 115 was allowing police to testify about hearsay evidence. Previously, hearsay evidence – out-of-court statements used to prove the truth of the matter asserted – was not permitted at preliminary hearings. Prop 115 created an exception allowing officers to testify about witness and victim statements made during the investigation. The idea was to avoid having victims and civilian witnesses testify repeatedly before trial.

But the defense bar strongly opposed this change, arguing it undermines the purpose of preliminary hearings. Testing an officer’s credibility is much less meaningful than cross-examining actual witnesses. And prosecutors can now establish probable cause based on hearsay statements that may not hold up later. The change means defendants have a harder time challenging weak charges before trial.

Example of Officer Hearsay Testimony

For example, an assault case where the victim told the responding officer “John punched me in the face.” Before Prop 115, the officer could not testify to the victim’s statement at the preliminary hearing. The victim had to testify themselves so the defense could cross-examine them. Now the officer can testify that “the victim told me John punched them,” allowing the prosecution to establish probable cause without the victim testifying.

Time Limits on Preliminary Hearings

Prop 115 also placed strict time limits on preliminary hearings – no more than one day for felonies punishable by life in prison, and half a day for other felonies. While expedited hearings can benefit both sides in simple cases, critics argued these limits are arbitrary and make it hard to thoroughly examine prosecution evidence in complex cases.

Defense attorneys complain they frequently need to rush through hearings or withdraw relevant evidence due to time constraints. And they argue judges feel pressured to find probable cause regardless of the evidence in order to stay on schedule.

Strategies for Short Preliminary Hearings

Here are some tips for working within the time limits:

• Prioritize the most important issues and lines of questioning.
• Challenge hearsay evidence and basis of officer testimony.
• Object to irrelevant prosecution evidence to save time.
• Ask the judge to briefly stop the clock for valid reasons.
• Consider consenting to certain evidence to save time for key issues.
• Save some arguments for trial if needed.

Prosecution Objections to Defense Evidence

Another change under Prop 115 is allowing prosecutors to object to defense evidence at preliminary hearings as irrelevant, hearsay, or improper character evidence. Previously, prosecutors could generally not object to defense evidence at this stage.

While reasonable objections benefit both sides, giving prosecutors this power can disrupt the defense’s presentation and disadvantage defendants. Defense attorneys argue prosecutors often make objections to disrupt their strategy even if they won’t be sustained. This eats up precious time that defendants don’t get back.

Responding to Prosecution Objections

To respond to prosecution objections:

• Argue against objections when appropriate.
• Explain relevance of disputed defense evidence.
• Ask for time spent on objections to be added back.
• Focus on key evidence and issues where needed.
• Save arguments for trial if objections seem unreasonable.

Implications for Defendants

So what does all this mean for defendants facing preliminary hearings? Here are some of the key implications:

• Higher standard to challenge charges pretrial – With less ability to cross-examine witnesses and present thorough defense evidence, it is harder to weed out questionable charges before trial.
• Increased leverage for prosecutors – Prosecutors can use hearsay testimony and objections to control narratives in hearings.
• Less information revealed pretrial – Limits on hearing time and defense evidence allow prosecutors to withhold information.
• Added pressure to plead guilty – Defendants may feel more pressure to plead guilty early to avoid the risk of trial.

While Prop 115 aimed to make the system more efficient, many defense advocates argue it came at a real cost to due process and checking prosecutorial power. But skilled defense attorneys can still work within the rules to vigorously represent their clients.

Defense Strategies Post-Prop 115

Despite the challenges of Prop 115, strong defense strategies can still lead to favorable preliminary hearing outcomes. Here are some examples:

• Thoroughly investigate the case independently of police reports.
• Subpoena and prepare prosecution witnesses for cross-examination.
• Closely examine basis of officer testimony and hearsay statements.
• Raise doubts about credibility of prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• Present exculpatory defense evidence when possible.
• Emphasize prosecutorial burden of proof to show probable cause.
• Save some arguments for trial if needed.

While preliminary hearings now favor the prosecution, they can still serve as an important checkpoint to prevent weak cases from going to trial. Defendants should work closely with an experienced criminal defense lawyer to make the most of preliminary hearings under Prop 115.

The Future of Preliminary Hearings

Proposition 115 made monumental changes to preliminary hearings in California. But decades later, there is still debate around its impacts. Some argue the reduced hearings adequately protect defendants while speeding up justice. But critics maintain the changes went too far in eroding critical pretrial safeguards.

There have been efforts to reform or reverse parts of Prop 115 over the years, but major changes have stalled. For now, criminal practitioners must work within the Prop 115 framework while striving to balance efficiency, advocacy and justice.

Navigating preliminary hearings in California’s modern legal landscape requires knowledge, preparation and strategic focus. But skilled defense lawyers can still protect their clients’ rights every step of the way. With smart advocacy, preliminary hearings can still serve as an important checkpoint on the road to a just outcome.

References

[1] Navigating Preliminary Hearings in the Age of Proposition 115
[2] Peace Officer Hearsay Testimony
[3] Understanding California’s Preliminary Hearing
[4] Effects of Proposition 115 on California Trial Court Caseloads
[5] Restoring Victims’ Rights: California Proposition 115
[6] Proposition 115 Preliminary Hearings: Sacrificing Reliability on the Altar of Expediency