Legal Articles

Jurisdiction-precise analysis from bar-verified attorneys. Filter by practice area or state.

Filtering: Criminal Defense✕ Clear

California AB 2773: Police Use of Force Disclosure Requirements and What They Mean for Criminal Defense in 2026

AB 2773, effective January 1, 2026, requires California law enforcement agencies to publicly disclose use-of-force incident reports — including body-worn camera footage, officer identification, and sustained finding status — within 45 business days of a sustained finding or final adjudication. For criminal defense attorneys, the law creates both a new investigative tool and a procedural question about how these disclosures interact with Brady and Pitchess discovery obligations.

✓·

New York CPL Article 245 Discovery Reform: How Courts Are Handling Disclosure Failures Three Years In

New York's 2019 criminal discovery reform replaced the Rosario rule with a sweeping automatic disclosure mandate under CPL Article 245, requiring prosecutors to turn over all discoverable material within strict statutory deadlines. Three years of litigation have produced a complex body of case law on what constitutes a "willful" disclosure failure, when dismissal is warranted, and how courts are policing prosecutorial compliance. Defense attorneys need to know the current state of the doctrine.

✓·

California AB 333 Gang Enhancement Reform: How Courts Are Handling Retroactive Resentencing

California AB 333, effective January 1, 2022, narrowed the legal definition of a criminal street gang and changed the elements of gang participation and conspiracy offenses, rendering a large body of pre-2022 gang enhancement convictions legally invalid. The law's retroactive application under California's resentencing framework has generated a wave of petitions — and courts are navigating complex questions about what the prosecution can now prove at retrial. Defense counsel need to understand both the substantive changes and the resentencing procedure.

✓·

After Rahimi v. United States: Second Amendment Rights of Prohibited Persons in Federal Courts

The Supreme Court's 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi upheld the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders, while reaffirming the historical-tradition test articulated in Bruen. But Rahimi's holding has generated significant circuit conflict about what other federal firearms prohibitions survive constitutional scrutiny. Federal criminal defense attorneys must understand how the post-Rahimi landscape applies to the full range of section 922(g) prohibitions.

✓·
← PreviousPage 2 of 2