CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL LAW: STRANGE CASE ON OBTAINING A FINDING OF FACTUAL INNOCENCE.
THE REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A FINDING OF FACTUAL INNOCENCE
This defendant won at preliminary examination. He then sought a finding of factual innocence (Penal Code sec. 851.8), which was denied. He appeals. Even a finding that there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't ensure a factual innocence finding. Such a finding requires a determination that there was no reasonable cause to believe that the def. did the crime.
The prosecution could prove guilt to a preponderance, which would be insufficient for proof beyond a reasonable doubt but might also show reasonable cause that the def. did it.
The Court of Appeal here cites a case so ruling. But here the defendant won at the prelim. The Court of Appeal just says that the same rule applies. Isn't that wrong? The standard of proof at a prelim. is precisely reasonable cause, the very same standard, right?
People v. Bleich; 2009 DJ DAR 14750; DJ, 10/13/09; C/A 3rd
