Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Chang Wang, et al., Petitioners v. Terilyn Carter-Garrett, et al.

:r

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

APR t 3 2021

No.

OFFICE of the clerk

In The

Supreme Court ot tljr ®ntteii States

1

Chang Wang and Yen Wang,

Petitioners,

v.

Terilyn Carter-Garrett, Denzel L. Gilmore,

Patricia Simmons, Monica Simmons, Stacy Allen, Tianna

Jackson, Adajye Hampton, Amarij Hampton, Shayah Allen,

Tiffany Martin, Cynthia Pace, Damien Smith, Lateisha

Sutton, Astivon Mcoy, Leo Sutton-Thompson,

and Canzatar Crowder,

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Supreme Court of the State of California

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

%

Chang Wang and Yen Wang

204 7 Garden view Place

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Telephone: (707) 208-5378

Petitioners In Pro Per

RECEIVED

APR 1 9 2021

|5mCEEM°EFra^qK I

1

fr

I. QUESTION rRESENTED

Whether the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

were violated to deny Petitioners a fair trial due to the bias

of the presiding judge when, cumulatively:

1.

In her preliminary instructions to the jury the

presiding judge instructed the jury to find for the plaintiffs,-

t

During the trial, the presiding judge

2.

admonished the

defendants

an inordinate

and

unconscionable number of times, at least seventeen, in the

presence of and not in the presence of the jury;

During the trial, the presiding judge

3.

sustained the objections of counsel for plaintiffs, an

inordinate and unconscionable number of times, at least

one hundred thirteen, in the presence of and not in the

presence of the jury.

During the trial, the judge unfairly and

4.

prejudicially allowed testimony from a witness to show a

pattern to a prior case in which the

2

PRIOR LITIGATION

List of Parties:

Indicated on Cover Page

List of Proceedings:

1. California First District Court of Appeals

Case No. A155643

Date of Entry of Ruling:

November 9,2020

2. California Supreme Court

Case No. S266064

Date of Disposition:

January 13, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented

-»

Prior Litigation

2

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

3

Statement of Jurisdiction

3

Necessity for Review

3

U.S. Constitution Provisions

3,4

California Statutes

4

Statement of Facts

4

a. Procedural Facts

5

b. Substantive Facts

5, 6

8

Argument

a. TO THE PREJUDICE OF PETITIONERS,

JUDGE JONES VIOLATED HER CODE OF

ETHICS, CANON 3B(5) WHEN, DURING

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE

JURY, SHE INSTRUCTED THEM THAT

THE HOUSING CONDITIONS WERE SUB­

STANDARD.........................................................

9

")

b.

TO THE PREJUDICE OF PETITIONERS,

JUDGE JONES VIOLATED HER CODE OF

ETHICS, CANON 3B(5), WHEN, THROUGH­

OUT THE TRIAL, SHE UNREASONABLY

AND CONSTANTLY SUSTAINED PLAINTIFFS’

OBJECTIONS ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN

TIMES, ADMONISHED DEFENDANT/

PETITIONERS EIGHTEEN TIMES, AND,

FROM HE BENCH TOLD THE DEFENDANT/

PETITIONERS TO “STOP TALKING” OR “BE

10

QUIET” TWELVE SEPARATE TIMES

Conclusion

12

APPENDICES

Appendix A.

Appendix B.

Appendix C.

1A

2A

3A

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CasesArmstrong v. Manzo,

380 U.S. 545 (1965)..

3

City of West Covina v. Perkins,

525 U.S. 234 (1999)....................

3

Fuentes v. Shevin,

407 U.S. 67 (1972)

3

Goldberg v. Kelly,

397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970)

3

Mathews v. Eldridge, ....

424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)

3

Michail v. Fluor Mining & Metals (1986)

180 Cal. App.3d 284.......................................

11

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank

& Trust Co.,

339 U.S. 306...................................

10

People v. Corella (2004)

122 Cal.App.4th 461.....

11

People v. Freeman (2010)

47 Cal.4th 993...................

10

People v. Green (1980)

27 Cal.3d 1.....................

10, 11

People v. Hollie (2010)

180 Cal.App.4th 1262

11

People v. Martinez (1999)

20 Cal.4th 225....................

11

People v. Wright (1985)

39 Cal.3d 576

11

Pinter-Brown v. Regents of University

of California (2020)

48 Cal.App.5th 55.....................................

9

Ramona Manor Convalescent Hosp. v.

Care Enters, (1S86)

177 Cal.App.3d 1120................................

11

Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020)

44 Cal.App.5th 570.........................

9, 10

Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Lee,

26 Cal. App. 3d 621 (1972)............

10

Schweiker v. McClure,

456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982)

3

Constitutions:

U.S. Constitution

Amendment V.....

U.S. Constitution

Amendment XIV..

Federal Statutes28 U.S.C. § 1257

3

Rules'

Unites States Supreme Court

Rules of Court, Rule 11............

3

State StatutesCalifornia Evidence Code § 352

8, 10, 11, 12

California Evidence Code § 1101(b)

4, 8, 10, 11

Codes'

California Judicial Code of Ethics

Canon 3B(5)......................................

8, 9, 10

3

I. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Chang Wang and Yen Wang respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari

to review the decision of the California Supreme Court’s Order denying

their Petition for Review of the First District Court of Appeal’s Ruling

affirming the findings of the jury after trial and judgment of the Solano

County Superior Court. (Please see First District Court of Appeal’s

Ruling attached as Exhibit A; see also Docket of California Supreme

Court’s Order denying Petition for Review attached as Exhibit B.)

II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Chang Wang and Yen Wang’s Petition for Review filed with the

California Supreme Court was denied on January 13, 2021. The

petitioners herein invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1257 and under the United States Supreme Court Rules of Court, Rule

11, having timely filed this Petition for Writ of Certiorari within the time

of ninety days of the California Supreme Court’s ruling.

III. NECESSITY FOR REVIEW

A grant of review will permit ultimate review of issues necessary to

settle important questions of legal parameters of judicial bias required,

and the extent of prejudice caused, in order for a lower court to

confidently vacate and set aside a judgment or ruling to ensure a fair

trial required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

Constitution. See City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234 (1999);

Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982); Mathews v. Eldridge,

424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976); Puentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80-81 (1972);

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380

U.S. 545, 552 (1965).

IV. U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND

CALIFORNIA STATE STATUTES

United States Constitution, Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment

or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising

in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in

actual service in time of War or public danger; nor

shall any person be subject for the same offense to

be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be

4

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness

against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law; nor shall

private property be taken for public use, without

just compensation.

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV section V

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United

States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

are citizens of the United States and of the state

wherein they reside. No state shall make or

enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges

or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any state deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property, with-out due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

equal protection of the laws.

California Evidence Code § 352:

The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if

Its probative value is substantially outweighed by

the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate

undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial

danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues,

or of misleading the jury.

California Evidence Code § 1101(b):

(a) . . .

(b) Nothing in this section prohibits the admission of evidence

that a person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act

when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive,

opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,

identity, absence of mistake or accident, or whether a

defendant in a prosecution for an unlawful sexual act or

attempted unlawful sexual act did not reasonably and in

good faith believe that the victim consented) other than

his or her disposition to commit such an act.

(c) . . .

5

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

a. Proce dural Facts:

May 1, 2017:

Civil Summons and Complaint filed with the

Sonoma County Superior Court

September 6, 2017:

First Amended Complaint filed with the

Sonoma County Superior Court. Summons

issued

October 6, 2017:

Each of the defendants (Petitioners herein)

file their Answers to First Amended

Complaint

May 23, 2018:

Trial commences

July 3, 2018:

Judgment on the Verdict entered

September 6, 2018:

Notice of Appeal filed

November 9, 2020:

Ruling filed, First District Court of Appeal

December 11, 2020:

Petition for Review filed with California

Supreme Court

January 13, 2021:

Petition for Review denied by California

Supreme Court

b. Substantive Facts:

On May 23, 2018, the jury trial of the defendants, Petitioners, began

with the Honorable Alesia Jones, judge presiding. (Please see Reporter’s

Trial Transcripts at Page 2, line 15, attached as Exhibit C.) The

Petitioners, landlords to the plaintiffs, were charged in plaintiffs’ First

Amended Complaint with the following causes of action concerning the

residences leased by the Petitioners to the Plaintiffs:

1. Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability

2. Habitabiltiy Tort

3. Nuisance

4. Violation of Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3

5. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

6. Violations of Civil Code Section 1942.4

6

7. Negligence

8. Fraudulent Concealment

9. Constructive Eviction

10. Violations of Civil Code Section 1940.2 11 (Please see

Docket, September 6, 2017, Entry, attached as Exhibit D.)

Before the trial began, the plaintiffs dismissed the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,

and Tenth Causes of Action. (Please see Trial Transcripts attached as

Exhibit A, at Page 10, lines 5-10.)

It is important to note that this petition does not concern itself with the

issue(s) of whether the Petitioners/Defendants committed the acts and

were at fault as alleged in the complaint filed by the Respondents, but

whether the Petitioners/Defendants were afforded constitutional due

process during the trial; whether Judge Jones conducted the

proceedings without bias thus ensuring a fair trial.

This issue first presents itself when Judge Jones during preliminary

instructions to the jury instructs them that the housing conditions

were sub-standard. She states at Page 27, lines 19 — 22 of the

Reporter’s Transcript:

“. . . They seek monetary damages because of

sub-standard conditions existing in the residential

rental housing they rented to - - they rented from

Chang Wang and Yen Yang who are called the

Defendants.”

Then, at Page 30, lines 26 — 28, Judge Jones instructs:

. . You should decide the case against each

Defendant separately as if it were a separate

Lawsuit.”

These instructions first instructs the jury before testimony or the

presentation of evidence or argument that the residential housing

rented to the plaintiffs were “sub-standard”. She then instructs that

the jury should decide the case against each defendant (separately).

During the trial which began on May 23, 2018, and ended on June 8,

2018, Judge Jones sustained the plaintiffs’ objections to the

Petitioners’ questioning of witnesses one hundred thirteen times.

7

These can be found in the Reporter’s Trial Transcripts, Exhibit C, at

the following:

Pg. 349, lines 20-22

Pg. 352, lines 8-9

Pg. 361, lines 9-10

Pg. 393, lines 20-21

Pg. 396, lines 15*17

Pg. 397, lines 10-11

Pg. 409, lines 5-6

Pg. 410, linesl-2

Pg. 419, lines 22-23

Pg. 648, lines 18-21

Pg. 656, lines 25*27

Pg. 664, lines 21*24

Pg. 668, lines 11-15

Pg. 679, lines 1*3

Pg. 681, lines 9-10

Pg. 696, line 28

Pg. 700, lines 24*25

Pg. 704, lines 1*2

Pg. 707, lines 9-10

Pg. 708, lines 9*11

Pg. 715: lines 7*8

Pg. 721: lines 11-13

Pg. 723: lines 1*4

Pg. 727: lines 2*3

Pg. 736: lines 3*4

Pg. 966: lines 8*9

Pg. 976: lines 4*5

Pg. 992: lines 2*4

Pg. 1007: lines 4-5

Pg. 1044: lines 16*17

Pg. 1046: lines 7*8

Pg. 1067: lines 18*19

Pg. 1196; lines 3-4

Pg. 1197: lines 8*9

Pg. 1198; lines 9*14

Pg. 1231: lines 18*19

Pg. 1238: lines 19*20

Pg. 1255: lines 3-4

Pg. 350, lines 15*17

Pg. 355, lines 5*6

Pg. 361, lines 12*13

Pg. 393, lines 26*27

Pg. 396, lines 21*22

Pg. 397, hues 16*18

Pg. 409, lines 11*14

Pg. 411, lines 4*5

Pg. 420, linesl7*18

Pg. 650, lines 20*23

Pg. 657, lines 7*8

Pg. 666, lines 6*7

Pg. 669, lines 10*12

Pg. 679, lines 8*11

Pg. 685, lines 20*21

Pg. 697, lines 25*26

Pg. 701, lines 11*12

Pg. 706, lines 1*2

Pg. 707, lines 16*17

Pg. 708: lines 26*27

Pg. 716: lines 15*17

Pg. 721: lines 25*26

Pg. 725: lines 4*5

Pg. 730: lines 23*24

Pg. 962: lines 20*22

Pg. 969: lines 4*5

Pg. 976: lines 10*11

Pg. 1006: lines 15*16

Pg. 1007: lines 7*8

Pg. 1044: lines 24*25

Pg. 1051: lines 18*19

Pg. 1190: lines 14*15

Pg. 1196: lines 13*14

Pg. 1197: lines 23*24

Pg. 1198: lines 17*18

Pg. 1231: lines 22*23

Pg. 1253: lines 22*25

Pg. 1262: lines 18*20

Pg. 351, lines 4*5

Pg. 361, lines 5*6

Pg. 361, lines 17-18

Pg. 394, lines 2*3

Pg. 397, lines 23-24

Pg. 407, lines 23*24

Pg. 409, lines 19*21

Pg. 411, lines 13-14

Pg. 647, lines 21*24

Pg. 651, lines 1*4

Pg. 657, linesl9*20

Pg. 668, lines 5*6

Pg. 675, lines 25-26

Pg. 680, lines 7*8

Pg. 687, lines 16-22

Pg. 698, lines 13*14

Pg. 703, lines 23*24

Pg. 706, lines 25*27

Pg. 707, lines 20*21

Pg. 709: lines 23-26

Pg. 720: lines 22-23

Pg. 722: lines 28

Pg. 726: lines 21-23

Pg. 732: lines 2*3

Pg. 962: lines 26*27

Pg. 970: lines 27*28

Pg. 991: lines 22*24

Pg. 1006: lines 19*21

Pg. 1010: lines 12*13

Pg. 1045: lines 25*30

Pg. 1052: lines 2*3

Pg. 1190: lines 23*25

Pg. 1196: lines 18*19

Pg. 1197: lines 26*27

Pg. 1230; lines 14*15

Pg. 1237: lines 2*3

Pg. 1254: lines 28

Further, Judge Jones “admonished” Petitioner Chang Wang in front of

and out of the hearing of the jury a minimum of eighteen times. Some of

8

these admonishments can be found in the Reporter’s Trial Transcripts,

Exhibit C at the following:

Pg. 47, linesll-15

Pg. 356, lines 11-15

Pg. 392, lines 3-28

Pg. 653, 8

Pg. 675, 23-28

Pg. 732, 22

Pg. 47, 23-26

Pg. 357, lines 11-13

Pg. 399, lines 26-27

Pg. 654, lines 19

Pg. 691, lines 17

Pg. 735, lines 16-27

Pg. 346, 24-27

Pg. 371, lines 8-12

I'g. baa, lines iz

Pg. 655, lines 27

Pg. 699, lines 5-7

Pg. 1072, lines 4

'T* >.

/—w

T “

^

Judge Jones further told the Petitioner Chang Wang to either “stop

talking” or “be quiet” on twelve separate times. These exclamations can

be found in the Reporter’s Trial Transcripts, Exhibit C, at the following:

Pg. 385, lines 26

Pg. 398, lines 11

Pg. 401, lines 23

Pg. 403, lines 27-28

Pg. 442, lines 13

Pg. 459, lines 23

Pg. 460, lines 18

Pg. 464, lines 14

Pg. 464, lines 26

Pg. 621, lines 14

Pg. 653, lines 13

Pg. 1016, lines 14

Further, Judge Jones wrongly allowed testimony of Dylan Brady,

Deputy City Attorney for the City of Vallejo that described a lawsuit

the Petitioners lost. (Please see copy of “Vallejo Complaint” attached as

Exhibit D.) Mr. Brady’s testimony was allowed under Evidence Code §

1101(b) to allegedly show modus operandi, plan or pattern of the

defendant Petitioners.

Petitioners objected at the time and now objects under Evidence Code §

352 in that the probative value of Deputy City Attorney Brady’s testimony

was outweighed by the prejudice it caused by its admittance. (See

Argument, below.)

VI. ARGUMENT

Generally.

Petitioners are Chinese by origin who immigrated to the United States from

South Korea. English is their second language. They have no legal training

and know little of California or Federal law.

In this case both parties appeared at trial in pro per having difficulty with

the English language and virtually without understanding of the law.

Canon 3B(5) of the California Judicial Code of Ethics states'-

9

(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without

bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the

performance of judicial duties, engage in speech,

gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably

be perceived as (a) bias, prejudice, or harassment,

including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or

harassment based upon race, sex, gender, gender

identity,* gender expression, * religion, national

origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation,

marital status, socioeconomic status, or political

affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment.

Petitioners allege herein that Judge Jones violated this judicial canon of

the California Judicial Code of Ethics when, during the trial, she

engaged in speech that could reasonably be perceived as bias,

prejudice, or harassment (see Pinter-Brown v. Regents of University of

California (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 55 [261 Cal.Rptr.3d 486]; Schmidt v.

Superior Court {2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570, 589 [257 Cal.Rptr.3d 699]) at

trial by the jury as followsa. TO THE PREJUDICE OF PETITIONERS, JUDGE JONES

VIOLATED HER CODE OF ETHICS, CANON 3B(5) WHEN,

DURING PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY,

SHE INSTRUCTED THEM THAT THE HOUSING CONDITIONS

WERE SUB-STANDARD.

The housing conditions of the residences leased to the Plaintiffs goes to

the heart of the issues at trial. At Page 27, lines 19-22 of the Reporter’s

Transcript she instructs the jury and describes that the housing was

sub-standard when in describing the Plaintiffs, she states:

“. . . They seek monetary damages because of

sub-standard conditions existing in the residential

rental housing they rented to - - they rented from

Chang Wang and Yen Yang who are called the

Defendants.”

She does not state that the housing conditions were to “alleged” to be sub­

standard, but that they were sub-standard.

Then, at Page 30, lines 26 — 28, Judge Jones again violates the Code of Ethics

when she instructs the jury:

10

. . You should decide the case against each

defendant separately as if it were a separate

lawsuit.”

She is instructing the jury that they . . should decide against each

defendant. . (separately). (See Substantive Facts, above.)

Certainly, these instructions could reasonably be perceived by a reasonable

jury that the judge maintained a “bias and prejudice” against the defendants.

b. TO THE PREJUDICE OF PETITIONERS, JUDGE JONES VIOLATED

HER CODE OF ETHICS, CANON 3B(5), WHEN, THROUGHOUT THE

TRIAL, SHE UNREASONABLY AND CONSTANTLY SUSTAINED

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN TIMES,

ADMONISHED DEFENDANT/PETITIONERS EIGHTEEN TIMES,

AND, FROM THE BENCH TOLD THE DEFENDANT/PETITIONERS

TO “STOP TALKING” OR “BE QUIET” TWELVE SEPARATE TIMES.

(See Substantive Facts, above.)

The constant and incessant harassment of the Petitioners, especially,

Petitioner Chang Wang, by Judge Jones (Exhibit C) had to have had a negative

impact on the jury, and it would seem impossible that members of the

jury would believe that Judge Jones had anything but a bias and prejudice

against Petitioners. At the very least, these extraordinary verbalizations could

reasonably be perceived by a reasonable jury that the judge maintained a

“bias and prejudice” against the defendants thus causing an unfair trial

in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which require a

fair trial.

'

For further discussion, please see Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust

Co., 339 U.S. 306; Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020), supra, at p. 589; People

v. Freeman (2010) 47 Cal.4th 993 [103 Cal.Rptr.3d 723, 222 P.3d 177];

Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. Lee, 26 Cal. App. 3d 621 [103 Cal. Rptr. 106],

1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 972.

c. TO PETITIONERS’ PREJUDICE, JUDGE JONES ERRED IN

ALLOWING EVIDENCE CODE § 1101(B) TESTIMONY TO BE

HEARD BY THE JURY BASED UPON EVIDENCE CODE

§ 352 AS THE RECORD DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY

DEMONSTRATE JUDGE JONES WEIGHED THE PROBATIVE

VALUE OF THE EVIDENCE VERSUS ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT.

Evidence Code section 352 provides that "The court in its discretion may

exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the

11

probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time

or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or

of misleading the jury. (Evidence Code § 352.)

However, pursuant to California Supreme Court authority, it is settled that

if a party seeks to exclude evidence under Evidence Code § 352, the record

must affirmatively show that the trial judge did in fact weigh the prejudice

against the probative value in relation to ruling on the admissibility of the

evidence. People v. Wright (1985) 39 Cal.3d 576, 582 [217 Cal.Rptr. 212];

and People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 25 [164 Cal.Rptr. l], overruled on

other grounds in People v. Mai'tinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 239 [83 Cal.

Rptr.2d 533]; Ramona Manor Convalescent Hosp. v. Care Enters, (1986)

177 Cal.App.3d 1120, 1138 [225 Cal.Rptr. 120]. The trial court must make

an affirmative record of its exercise of discretion to facilitate meaningful

review in ruling on a . . . motion based upon Evidence Code § 352 grounds.

The record must reflect that the judge did in fact weigh prejudice against

probative value on a section 352 objection. Michail v. Fluor Mining & Metals

(1986) 180 Cal. App.3d 284, 287 [225 Cal.Rptr. 403].

The California Supreme Court has indicated the foregoing rule is necessary

to permit meaningful appellate review and ensure that the ruling on the

motion is "'the product of a mature and careful reflection on the part of the

judge." People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at 24. If there is no express

statement by the trial court that it has weighed prejudice against probative

value, the record must at least "affirmatively demonstrate that the court did

so." People v. Hollie (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1275 [103 Cal.Rptr.3d

633] (citations omitted). The record must specifically show the trial court

weighed prejudice against probative value. People v. Corella (2004) 122

Cal.App.4th 461, 471 [18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770]

In the instant case, the record shows that Judge Jones asked Petitioners

whether they objected to the proposed Evidence Code§ 1101(b) testimony.

(See Exhibit C at pp. 372-373, lines 28-1.) Though Judge Jones asked

whether Petitioner Chang Wang had an objection to the Plaintiffs intent to

call Dylan Brady, Vallejo City Attorney, to testify pursuant to Evidence Code

§ 1101(b) to show Petitioner/defendants’ habit, plan or modus operandi. It can

be assumed that Judge Jones knew and understood the implications of such

testimony when she asked Chang Wang whether he objected. It can also be

assumed that the Petitioner/defendant had no appreciation nor

understanding of the type of testimony proposed.

Judge Jones made no effort at explanation, and out of precaution, Chang

Wang nevertheless objected without understanding why he was objecting.

(Exhibit C, page 373, lines 1-6.) The record is devoid of any evidence, and

12

when the record does not affirmatively reveal the trial court made a decision

that the prejudicial effect caused by such testimony was outweighed by its

probative effect, the inclusion of this evidence cannot be upheld on section

352 grounds.

xtt

Vi.

ttot/^vxt

Based on the above arguments, whether cumulatively or separately

considered, Petitioners request that this Court find that Petitioners were

prevented at trial from receiving their due process rights under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution which caused as a result to be

victim of an unfair trial and order the case remanded to the Solano County,

California Superior Court for further proceedings.

Dated: April 12, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

fsf

/s/

Yen Wang

Chang Wang

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

I certify that according to the computer program used to prepare

this brief, the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Certiorari contains

3324 words, not including the cover, the Tables of Contents and

Authorities, this certificate and the signature block.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: April 13, 2020.

rv

Larry Dick