SAN DIEGO JUDGE JOHN EINHORN REVERSED AGAIN
In yet another reversal fro San Diego Judge John Einhorn, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, said because the prosecution did not fully utilize Penal Code section 1334 et seq. (Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from without the States in Criminal Cases) by requesting that a witness be taken into custody even though the witness had made it clear she would not appear, it did not show due diligence.
San Diego Judge John S. Einhorn erred in allowing the government to introduce prelim testimony. What, Judge Einhorn helps the prosecution to convict a defendant? Sound familiar? We can always count on Judge Einhorn to help the prosecution (unless the prosecution is being prosecuted, like his dear friend Mr. Loganbach).
Code of Civil Procedure section 1219, subdivision (b), which restricts the court's power to use incarceration to compel testimony of a sexual assault victim does not affect the court's power to order that a victim of a sexual assault be brought before it or seek that the witness be taken into custody.
People v. Cogswell (C.A. 4th, 10/31/07, D049038) 07 C.D.O.S. 12668
