Court Opinion

ID: 9495061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:53:36.059276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:47.585899
License: Public Domain

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting.
I dissent because I do not agree that a district court must explicitly set out its *1084thought processes on the record, even if it is “important” that it “make a clear record concerning its decision.” See Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1268-69 (9th Cir.2000). Once over that hurdle, it is clear to me that the court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to admit the lurid, highly inflammatory, generally irrelevant evidence in question here.1 While it is not surprising to see it happen, I think it is most unfortunate that the hortatory language of Glanzer has now become an absolute rule — so absolute that it is now used to reverse a trial court decision which was made before the opinion even issued.2
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

. The court evenhandedly also kept out similarly lurid evidence about Blind-Doan, her activities, and her credibility.

. It seems to me that, as is all too often the case, Glanzer’s hortatory declamation turned a dies juridicus into a dies infaustus.