California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Bowens v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.4th 36, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 376, 820 P.2d 600 (Cal. 1991):
After Proposition 115, this considerable disparity in procedural rights survives. The initiative gives nothing whatever to defendants prosecuted by indictment. Moreover, it takes little away from defendants prosecuted by information. Such defendants are still entitled to a hearing before a neutral [1 Cal.4th 53] and legally knowledgeable magistrate. Here, the measure makes no change. Such defendants are still entitled to representation by retained or appointed counsel. Here too, the measure makes no change. Such defendants are still entitled to confront and cross-examine hostile witnesses. True, the measure somewhat limits their rights in this regard by relaxing the rules involving hearsay. But the relaxation it effects is itself quite limited. (See Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 160, 820 P.2d 262.) Finally, such defendants are still entitled to personally appear and affirmatively present exculpatory evidence. As to appearance, the measure yet again makes no change. As to evidence, it does little more. Certain restrictions and conditions are indeed imposed. But none appreciably affects exculpatory evidence.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.