Common use of Superior Court of Nevada County Clause in Contracts

Superior Court of Nevada County. 58 Cal.2d 56, 22 Cal.Rptr. 879, 372 P.2d 919 (1962); People x. Xxxxx, 60 Cal.2d 223, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16 (1963); Comment, The Self-Incrimination Privilege: Barrier to Criminal Discovery?, 51 Calif.L.Rev. 135 (1963); Note, 76 Harv.L.Rev. 838 (1963). The courts in Xxxxx v. Superior Court of Nevada County, supra, suggests that if manda- tory disclosure applies only to those items which the accused intends to introduce in evidence at trial, nei- ther the incriminatory nor the involuntary aspects of the privilege against self-incrimination are present. On balance the Advisory Committee is of the view that an independent right of discovery for both the de- fendant and the government is likely to contribute to both effective and fair administration. See Xxxxxxxx, Criminal Discovery and Self-Incrimination: Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Confronts the Dilemma, 53 Calif.L.Rev. 89 (1965), for an analysis of the difficulty of weighing the value of broad discovery against the value which in- heres in not requiring the defendant to disclose any- thing which might work to his disadvantage. Subdivision (b)(1)(A) provides that the defendant shall disclose any documents and tangible objects which he has in his possession, custody, or control and which he intends to introduce in evidence in his case in chief. Subdivision (b)(1)(B) provides that the defendant shall disclose the results of physical or mental exami- nations and scientific tests or experiments if (a) they were made in connection with a particular case; (b) the defendant has them under his control; and (c) he in- tends to offer them in evidence in his case in chief or which were prepared by a defense witness and the re- sults or reports relate to the witness’s testimony. In cases where both prosecution and defense have em- ployed experts to conduct tests such as psychiatric ex- aminations, it seems as important for the government to be able to study the results reached by defense ex- perts which are to be called by the defendant as it does for the defendant to study those of government experts. See Xxxxxxx, Criminal Discovery by the Prosecution: Frontier Developments and Some Proposals for the Fu- ture, 22 N.Y.U.Intra.L.Rev. 268 (1967); American Bar As- sociation, Standards Relating to Discovery and Proce- dure Before Trial § 3.2 (Supp., Approved Draft, 1970). Subdivision (b)(1)(C) provides for discovery of a list of

Superior Court of Nevada County. 58 Cal.2d 56, 22 Cal.Rptr. 879, 372 P.2d 919 (1962); People x. Xxxxxv. Lopez, 60 Cal.2d 223, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16 (1963); Comment, The Self-Incrimination Privilege: Barrier to Criminal Discovery?, 51 Calif.L.Rev. 135 (1963); Note, 76 Harv.L.Rev. 838 (1963). The courts in Xxxxx Jones v. Superior Court of Nevada County, supra, suggests that if manda- tory disclosure applies only to those items which the accused intends to introduce in evidence at trial, nei- ther the incriminatory nor the involuntary aspects of the privilege against self-incrimination are present. On balance the Advisory Committee is of the view that an independent right of discovery for both the de- fendant and the government is likely to contribute to both effective and fair administration. See XxxxxxxxLouisell, Criminal Discovery and Self-Incrimination: Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Roger Traynor Confronts the Dilemma, 53 Calif.L.Rev. 89 (1965), for an analysis of the difficulty of weighing the value of broad discovery against the value which in- heres in not requiring the defendant to disclose any- thing which might work to his disadvantage. Subdivision (b)(1)(A) provides that the defendant shall disclose any documents and tangible objects which he has in his possession, custody, or control and which he intends to introduce in evidence in his case in chief. Subdivision (b)(1)(B) provides that the defendant shall disclose the results of physical or mental exami- nations and scientific tests or experiments if (a) they were made in connection with a particular case; (b) the defendant has them under his control; and (c) he in- tends to offer them in evidence in his case in chief or which were prepared by a defense witness and the re- sults or reports relate to the witness’s testimony. In cases where both prosecution and defense have em- ployed experts to conduct tests such as psychiatric ex- aminations, it seems as important for the government to be able to study the results reached by defense ex- perts which are to be called by the defendant as it does for the defendant to study those of government experts. See XxxxxxxSchultz, Criminal Discovery by the Prosecution: Frontier Developments and Some Proposals for the Fu- ture, 22 N.Y.U.Intra.L.Rev. 268 (1967); American Bar As- sociation, Standards Relating to Discovery and Proce- dure Before Trial § 3.2 (Supp., Approved Draft, 1970). Subdivision (b)(1)(C) provides for discovery of a list of

Superior Court of Nevada County. 58 Cal.2d 56, 22 Cal.Rptr. 879, 372 P.2d 919 (1962); People x. Xxxxx, 60 Cal.2d 223, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16 (1963); Comment, The Self-Incrimination Privilege: Barrier to Criminal Discovery?, 51 Calif.L.Rev. 135 (1963); Note, 76 Harv.L.Rev. 838 (1963). The courts in Xxxxx v. Superior Court of Nevada County, supra, suggests that if manda- tory disclosure applies only to those items which the accused intends to introduce in evidence at trial, nei- ther the incriminatory nor the involuntary aspects of the privilege against self-incrimination are present. On balance the Advisory Committee is of the view that an independent right of discovery for both the de- fendant and the government is likely to contribute to both effective and fair administration. See Xxxxxxxx, Criminal Discovery and Self-Incrimination: Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Confronts the Dilemma, 53 Calif.L.Rev. 89 (1965), for an analysis of the difficulty of weighing the Page 85 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 16 value of broad discovery against the value which in- heres in not requiring the defendant to disclose any- thing which might work to his disadvantage. Subdivision (b)(1)(A) provides that the defendant shall disclose any documents and tangible objects which he has in his possession, custody, or control and which he intends to introduce in evidence in his case in chief. Subdivision (b)(1)(B) provides that the defendant shall disclose the results of physical or mental exami- nations and scientific tests or experiments if (a) they were made in connection with a particular case; (b) the defendant has them under his control; and (c) he in- tends to offer them in evidence in his case in chief or which were prepared by a defense witness and the re- sults or reports relate to the witness’s testimony. In cases where both prosecution and defense have em- ployed experts to conduct tests such as psychiatric ex- aminations, it seems as important for the government to be able to study the results reached by defense ex- perts which are to be called by the defendant as it does for the defendant to study those of government experts. See Xxxxxxx, Criminal Discovery by the Prosecution: Frontier Developments and Some Proposals for the Fu- ture, 22 N.Y.U.Intra.L.Rev. 268 (1967); American Bar As- sociation, Standards Relating to Discovery and Proce- dure Before Trial § 3.2 (Supp., Approved Draft, 1970). Subdivision (b)(1)(C) provides for discovery of a list of.

Superior Court of Nevada County. 58 Cal.2d 56, 22 Cal.Rptr. 879, 372 P.2d 919 (1962); People x. Xxxxxv. Lopez, 60 Cal.2d 223, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16 (1963); Comment, The Self-Incrimination Privilege: Barrier to Criminal Discovery?, 51 Calif.L.Rev. 135 (1963); Note, 76 Harv.L.Rev. 838 (1963). The courts in Xxxxx Jones v. Superior Court of Nevada County, supra, suggests that if manda- tory disclosure applies only to those items which the accused intends to introduce in evidence at trial, nei- ther the incriminatory nor the involuntary aspects of the privilege against self-incrimination are present. On balance the Advisory Committee is of the view that an independent right of discovery for both the de- fendant and the government is likely to contribute to both effective and fair administration. See XxxxxxxxLouisell, Criminal Discovery and Self-Incrimination: Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Roger Traynor Confronts the Dilemma, 53 Calif.L.Rev. 89 (1965), for an analysis of the difficulty of weighing the value of broad discovery against the value which in- heres in not requiring the defendant to disclose any- thing which might work to his disadvantage. Subdivision (b)(1)(A) provides that the defendant shall disclose any documents and tangible objects which he has in his possession, custody, or control and which he intends to introduce in evidence in his case in chief. Subdivision (b)(1)(B) provides that the defendant shall disclose the results of physical or mental exami- Page 73 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 16 nations and scientific tests or experiments if (a) they were made in connection with a particular case; (b) the defendant has them under his control; and (c) he in- tends to offer them in evidence in his case in chief or which were prepared by a defense witness and the re- sults or reports relate to the witness’s testimony. In cases where both prosecution and defense have em- ployed experts to conduct tests such as psychiatric ex- aminations, it seems as important for the government to be able to study the results reached by defense ex- perts which are to be called by the defendant as it does for the defendant to study those of government experts. See XxxxxxxSchultz, Criminal Discovery by the Prosecution: Frontier Developments and Some Proposals for the Fu- ture, 22 N.Y.U.Intra.L.Rev. 268 (1967); American Bar As- sociation, Standards Relating to Discovery and Proce- dure Before Trial § 3.2 (Supp., Approved Draft, 1970). Subdivision (b)(1)(C) provides for discovery of a list of

Superior Court of Nevada County. 58 Cal.2d 56, 22 Cal.Rptr. 879, 372 P.2d 919 (1962); People x. Xxxxxv. Lopez, 60 Cal.2d 223, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16 (1963); Comment, The Self-Incrimination Privilege: Barrier to Criminal Discovery?, 51 Calif.L.Rev. 135 (1963); Note, 76 Harv.L.Rev. 838 (1963). The courts in Xxxxx Jones v. Superior Court of Nevada County, supra, suggests that if manda- tory disclosure applies only to those items which the accused intends to introduce in evidence at trial, nei- ther the incriminatory nor the involuntary aspects of the privilege against self-incrimination are present. On balance the Advisory Committee is of the view that an independent right of discovery for both the de- fendant and the government is likely to contribute to both effective and fair administration. See XxxxxxxxLouisell, Rule 16 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Criminal Discovery and Self-Incrimination: Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Roger Traynor Confronts the Dilemma, 53 Calif.L.Rev. 89 (1965), for an analysis of the difficulty of weighing the value of broad discovery against the value which in- heres in not requiring the defendant to disclose any- thing which might work to his disadvantage. Subdivision (b)(1)(A) provides that the defendant shall disclose any documents and tangible objects which he has in his possession, custody, or control and which he intends to introduce in evidence in his case in chief. Subdivision (b)(1)(B) provides that the defendant shall disclose the results of physical or mental exami- nations and scientific tests or experiments if (a) they were made in connection with a particular case; (b) the defendant has them under his control; and (c) he in- tends to offer them in evidence in his case in chief or which were prepared by a defense witness and the re- sults or reports relate to the witness’s testimony. In cases where both prosecution and defense have em- ployed experts to conduct tests such as psychiatric ex- aminations, it seems as important for the government to be able to study the results reached by defense ex- perts which are to be called by the defendant as it does for the defendant to study those of government experts. See Xxxxxxx, Criminal Discovery by the Prosecution: Frontier Developments and Some Proposals for the Fu- ture, 22 N.Y.U.Intra.L.Rev. 268 (1967); American Bar As- sociation, Standards Relating to Discovery and Proce- dure Before Trial § 3.2 (Supp., Approved Draft, 1970). Subdivision (b)(1)(C) provides for discovery of a list of