Court of Appeal No. A156874 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DAVID DALEIDEN,1 Request for Immediate Stay to Join in Stay Petitioner, Granted in Related Case S255319 for Preliminary Hearing set for 04/22/2019 v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF On April 25, 2019 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, Respondent; Supreme Court No._____________ THE PEOPLE,2 Real Party in Interest. Court of Appeal No. A153060 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Dept. 23 Case No. 2502505 Judge: Christopher Hite Tel. No.: (415) 551-0309 PETITION FOR REVIEW After Decision by Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One 1 Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 8.504(b)(6), Petitioner titled his Petition identically to the title used by the subject order of the Court of Appeal 2 Rather than include “The People of the State of California,” as the Real Party in Interest, Petitioner has titled his Petition for review identically to the title appearing on the subject order of the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CRC, R. 8.504(b)(6). 1 Steve Cooley & Associates Steve Cooley, State Bar No. 56789 Brentford J. Ferreira, State Bar No. 113762 5318 E. 2nd Street, #399 Long Beach, California 90803 Telephone: (562) 400-8578 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant David Daleiden 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PETITION FOR REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 7 REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE STAY ............................................................................................. 8 APPROPRIATENESS OF REVIEW ............................................................................................... 9 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........................................................................................... 10 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS............................................................................. 10 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 13 I THIS COURT SHOULD INVOKE ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION..................................................... 13 II MARSY’S LAW CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO ALLOW INTERVENTION BY VICTIMS IN A CRIMINAL CASE 14 III THE INTERPRETATION OF MARSY’S LAW BY THE COURT BELOW BASED ON PP’S MOTION TO INTERVENE EFFECTS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL REVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION THROUGH THE INITIATIVE PROCESS ............................................................................................... 18 IV THE COORDINATION BETWEEN NAF, PP, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PREVENT A PUBLIC PROSECUTION IS EVIDENCE OF A DISCRIMINATORY PROSECUTION AND REQUIRES DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE ..................................................................................................................................... 19 V RECUSAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE IS REQUIRED ................................................ 25 VI THE SUPERIOR COURT’S DECISIONS TO PERMIT MR. DALEIDEN’S ACCUSERS TO TESTIFY ANONYMOUSLY AND TO SEAL EVIDENCE AFTER THE HEARING VIOLATE BOTH DEFENDANTS’ AND THE PUBLIC’S RIGHTS TO A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING ........................................................... 28 VII CONSIDERATION OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL INJUNCTION CONTINUES TO DEPRIVE MR. DALEIDEN OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING ............................................................................................. 30 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 33 3 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX A.......................................................................................................................... 35 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., (1986) 478 U.S. 697, 707, 106 S. Ct. 3172, 3178, 92 L. Ed. 2d 568, 578 ........................... 24 Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 287 (1970) ........................................................ 31 Baluyut v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 826, 832 .................................................................................................. 22 Denny’s, Inc. v. Cake, 364 F.3d 521, 531 (4th Cir. 2004)................................................................................................ 31 Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d ........................................................................................................ 15, 16, 17, 18 Furnish v. Bd. of Med. Examiners of Cal., 257 F.2d 520, 522-23 (9th Cir. 1958) ........................................................... 31 Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 US 332 (1975) ................................................................................................................... 32 Hill v. Martin, 296 U.S. 393, 403 (1935) ......................................................................................................................... 31 Legislature v. Eu, (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 492, 500. ................................................................................................................ 13 Miller v. Superior Court (1985)168 Cal. App. 3d 376, 382. ............................................................................................ 22 Monster Beverage Corp. v. Herrera, No. EDCV 13-00786-VAP (OPX), 2013 WL 12131740, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1206–07 ................................................... 28 Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 471, 505 ................................................ 32 People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 519, 526 ........................................................................................................ 28 Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Family Planning & Preventative Health Servs. v. Smith, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1616, *40 ................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside Cty.) (1986) 478 U.S. 1, 13-14 ................................. 28, 30 Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 340 [276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077] ............................................. 13, 18 Summit Bank v. Rogers (2012) 206 Cal. App. 4th 669, 691 ........................................................................................... 24 Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) 337 U.S. 1, 4 ................................................................................................................... 25 Timmerman v. Brown, 528 F.2d 811, 814 (4th Cir. 1975) .............................................................................................. 31 Weatherford v City of San Rafael (2017) 2 Cal. 5th ........................................................................................................ 17 Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 .................................................................................................................. 32 5 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 2283 ............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Penal Code Section 632(a) ............................................................................................................................................. 11 RULES California Rules of Court, Rule 29(a) .................................................................................................................................. 9 California Rules of Court, Rule 8.116 ................................................................................................................................. 8 California Rules of Court, Rule 8.504(b)(6) ...................................................................................................................... 1 REGULATIONS Government Code section 26500 ...................................................................................................................................... 9 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Cal. Const. art. 1, § 28 .................................................................................................................................................... 15 California Constitution, Article V, section 13 ...................................................................................................................... 9 6 Court of Appeal No. A156874 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DAVID DALEIDEN,3 Petitioner, Supreme Court No._____________ v. Court of Appeal No. 156874 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Dept. 23 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Judge: Christopher C. Hite SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, Tel. No.: (415) 551-0322 Respondent; Superior Court of California, County THE PEOPLE,4 of San Francisco, Dept. 23 Case Nos. Real Party in Interest. 2502505 & 17006621 Judge: Christopher C. Hite Tel. No.: (415) 551-0309 PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE TANI GORRE CANTIL-SAKAUYE, AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: David Daleiden,