John Sylvester was the counsel of record in the controversial Abdelqader v. Abraham published opinion. In the previous episode we discussed why it was controversial. (Short version: because the Court of Appeal, sub silentio, thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court and concluded that a missing finding required by statute gives you a an automatic get-a-new-trial-free card.) In this second part of our discussion, we discuss analogous situations with the Racial Justice Act, and in the example of family law financial disclosures—where in a closely analogous situation the Court of Appeal held exactly the opposite of Abdelqader.

John explains what attorneys are supposed to do with two conflicting authorities—with one of them being the Supreme Court. Hint: you have both arguments available to you, but as an attorney, unlike the Court of Appeal, when the Supreme Court has rejected your argument you have to say so.

John Sylvester’s biography and LinkedIn profile.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• ***Abdelqader v. Abraham***
• F.P. v. Monier
• Marriage of Burger
• Jeff and I recently discussed whether the Racial Justice Act is unconstitutional. (See Tim’s writeup here.)
• Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.