The Supreme Court will begin its December calendar with a memorial for former Justice John Arguelles, who died in April. Arguelles, who served on the court for two years starting in 1987, was 94.

The court has now posted the calendar. (There had been some tech problems with the court’s website.) The calendar includes just the four cases we mentioned yesterday.

The justices and counsel are back in the courtroom for the second month in a row. (See here.) The arguments will be live streamed, as all arguments have been since May 2016.

On Wednesday, December 7, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself):

People v. McWilliams: (1) Is the discovery of a parole or probation search condition an intervening circumstance that removes the taint of an illegal detention under the attenuation doctrine? (2) What constitutes purposeful and flagrant police misconduct under the attenuation doctrine analysis? The court granted review in July 2021.

In re Cabrera: When the court granted review in December 2021, it limited the issues to: “Did the sentencing court err by finding petitioner’s conviction for battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)) was a serious felony (id., §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)), despite the jury’s failure to reach a verdict on the attached allegation that petitioner personally inflicted great bodily injury (id., § 12022.7, subd. (a))?  (See Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296; Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270.)”

Travis v. Brand: Must a prevailing defendant in an action under the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq.) show that the case was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation in order to recover attorney fees? The court granted review in June 2021.

People v. Brown: See here. The court limited the issues to: “1. Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on the elements of first degree murder by poison (see People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal.3d 539, 544-546; People v. Mattison (1971) 4 Cal.3d 177, 183-184, 186)?  2. Was any such instructional error prejudicial?” The poisoning murder was a mother’s use of drugs while pregnant and nursing her baby, who died five days after birth. Review was granted in November 2019. Two months ago, and eight months after sending its oral argument letter, the court ordered supplemental briefing on three questions.