Source: https://www.shouselaw.com/preliminary-hearing.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:58:31+00:00

Document:
In California, after a prosecutor files a felony complaint with the court, California criminal law requires the judge to hold a preliminary hearing (oftentimes referred to as a "prelim" or probable cause hearing).
It's our job to try to convince the judge that there is not. And as a criminal defense law firm comprised of former prosecutors and cops, we know the most effective ways to do this.
1. What is a Preliminary Hearing?
1. What is a California Preliminary Hearing?
A preliminary hearing is one of the earliest stages in California's pretrial criminal court process. It is a special proceeding, held before a judge or magistrate, to determine if there is enough evidence to "hold you to answer" for a trial as to the charges. The prosecutor presents live witnesses and evidence, subject to cross-examination by the defense.
if so, is there enough probable cause to believe that the defendant is the person who committed that crime?
The burden of proof at a preliminary hearing is much less than that of a California criminal jury trial. In order to convict you at the conclusion of a jury trial, the prosecutor must prove to a moral certainty...that is, beyond a reasonable doubt...that you are guilty of the offense(s) as charged.
As Oakland criminal defense attorney Jim Hammer5 explains, "In order to meet this burden, the prosecutor must establish probable cause for each element of each crime. An 'element of the crime' is a fact that must be established before the prosecutor can prove that the offense was committed."
One discovery motion that your California defense lawyer may want to raise is a Pitchess motion.19 If you believe that you were a victim of police misconduct, a Pitchess motion is a request to discover information concerning complaints about the officer's prior use of excessive force or bias.
If such complaints exist, it may be possible to call the complainants as witnesses and thus undermine the officers' credibility.
And if the evidence at the preliminary hearing is subject to two interpretations...that is, one pointing to possible guilt and one pointing to possible innocence...the trial court must accept the judge's ruling and cannot grant a California Penal Code 995 motion to dismiss based on a lack of probable cause.
That said, there are times when the judge's ruling from the preliminary hearing seems almost irrelevant. This is because...depending on the circumstances...the prosecutor may still be able to charge you with an offense that the judge dismissed.
One of the controlling issues on this point is whether the judge's findings were factual or legal.
The most common example of a factual finding is a ruling on the credibility of a witness. For example, "Mr. Smith's testimony that he saw the defendant stab the victim is unbelievable because of the lighting, distance, and crowd of people standing between them."
An example of a legal finding takes place when the judge determines that certain undisputed facts do or do not constitute a crime.
Example: Tony is charged with Penal Code 246: Shooting at an Inhabited Dwelling. At the preliminary hearing, evidence comes out that Tony is a Mara Salvatrucha gang member and committed the shooting to benefit the gang. Even though Tony wasn't charged with the California street gang enhancement, the judge binds him over on both the shooting charge and the gang enhancement, based on the evidence discovered at the prelim.
There are a few final points to note about California's preliminary hearing law.
If...at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing...the court holds you to answer for crimes that were not supported by probable cause, you are entitled to seek a dismissal from the trial court via a California Penal Code 995 PC motion to dismiss.
A California Penal Code 995 motion to dismiss is another challenge to probable cause. In order prevail on a 995 motion, the prosecutor must offer sufficient proof as to the existence of each element of the allegation.
If the prosecutor is unable to do this, the judge grants your motion and dismisses some or all of the complaint against you.
Your California criminal defense attorney has the option of requesting a Penal Code 1538.5 PC "motion to suppress evidence" hearing at either the prelim or in a trial court. You are only entitled to raise one Penal Code 1538.5 motion during the life of a criminal case, which means that when to request it is a matter of strategy that must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
A 1538.5 PC motion to suppress evidence is exactly what it sounds like...a motion to suppress any evidence that was obtained pursuant to an illegal search and/or seizure. If the court grants the motion and suppresses the evidence, this often results in the charges being reduced or dismissed altogether.
If the prosecutor re-files more than 15 days after the complaint is dismissed, your original bail will be exonerated and your bail will likely be set by the local county bail schedule. Depending on the circumstances at that point, you or your attorney may want to request a California bail hearing to reduce the newly set bail.
In a grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor goes before a group of people chosen from the trial jury pool and makes the case that a suspect should be charged with a crime. If a specified number of the grand jury members believe that charges are justified, then the grand jury issues an "indictment" against the suspect.
If you or loved one is in need of help with preliminary hearings and you are looking to hire an attorney for representation, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group. We can provide a free consultation in office or by phone. We have local offices in Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, Pasadena, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura, San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and throughout California.
To learn about Nevada preliminary hearings, to go our page on Nevada preliminary hearings.
4People v. Ingle (1960) 53 Cal.2d 407, 412.
5Oakland criminal defense attorney Jim Hammer uses his inside knowledge as a former San Francisco Deputy District Attorney to defend clients throughout the Bay Area, including San Francisco, Berkeley, Marin County, San Jose, and Oakland.
6Penal Code sections 12022 and 12022.5 PC California's "personal use of a firearm" laws are examples of the types of enhancements that must be proven during a California preliminary hearing if they are elements of the offense(s) charged.
7People v Superior Court (Mendella) (1983) 33 C3d 754; Panos v Superior Court (1984) 156 CA3d 626; Ghent v Superior Court (1979) 90 CA3d 944.
17Brady v Maryland (1963) 373 US 83; U.S. v Bagley (1985) 473 US 667; In re Brown (1998) 17 C4th 873, 879; and Izazaga v Superior Court (1991) 54 C3d 356.
19Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 is the California case that establishes Pitchess motions and their relationship to police misconduct.
21People v. Superior Court (Bolden) (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1109.
22People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, 664.
24California Penal Code sections 1387-1387.1 PC. See also California Penal Code 871.5 PC.
25People v. Farley (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 215, 221. ("From the foregoing rationale we perceive the practical rule to be that in cases where the magistrate makes factual findings which are fatal to the asserted conclusion that a particular offense was committed, the district attorney may not recharge that offense in the information. A clear example of this would be where the magistrate expresses disbelief of a witness whose testimony is essential to the establishment of some element of the corpus delicti. Where, however, the magistrate either expressly or impliedly accepts the evidence and simply reaches an ultimate legal conclusion therefrom - i.e., whether or not such evidence adds up to reasonable cause that the offense had been committed - such conclusion is open to challenge by inclusion in the information which action is thereafter subject to attack in the superior court under Penal Code section 995, and ultimately to appellate review").
29People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968. ("The court held that prior three strikes convictions do not preclude a trial court from reducing a current wobbler offense originally charged as a felony either by imposing a misdemeanor sentence (Pen. Code 17, subd. (b)(1)), or by declaring it a misdemeanor upon a grant of probation (Pen. Code 17, subd. (b)(3)). Both versions of the three strikes law specifically acknowledge that wobblers classified as misdemeanors at the time of the initial sentencing do not trigger increased penalties (Pen. Code 667, subd. (d)(1), 1170.12, subd. (b)(1)).") Although this case applies to California's three strikes law and its relationship to sentencing, it is analogous to California preliminary hearings as well.
34California Penal Code 682 PC -- Prosecution by indictment or information; exceptions.
35See About Grand Juries, California Grand Jurors' Association Website.
36Please feel free to contact our Nevada criminal defense attorneys Michael Becker and Neil Shouse for any questions relating to Nevada's criminal court system. Our Nevada law offices are located in Reno and Las Vegas.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.