Court Opinion

ID: 9725959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:22:54.861781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:21.852856
License: Public Domain

PETTITT, J.,* Dissenting.
I would deny the writ. The bare majority in the arguably collusive Van Atta action came up with a strange product which relied heavily on an article written by a defendant in that case who ostensibly opposed the majority position. No wonder justiciability was an issue. We are not confronted here with abstract social issues, but rather with real defendants who, when extended the privilege of OR release, refuse to accept a condition that they not violate the same laws they are charged with violating. The issue here is whether in granting discretionary OR release a judge can attach reasonable conditions to the privilege. The Van Atta case did not in any way deal with the situation before us. It is not authority here.
Neither incarceration versus freedom, future appearance, predictive considerations, due process nor burden of proof are involved in this peti*1087tion, whereas they bottomed the Van Atta decision. Likewise, freedom of speech and equal protection are not really involved and are no more than issues raised through a cloud of tortured logic.
I would adopt the reasoning of People v. Sylvestry (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [169 Cal.Rptr. 575] as set out on page 7 of that opinion.

 Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.