The best preliminary-hearing preparation does three things at once: tests whether the prosecution can satisfy the governing standard, protects the defense from unnecessary disclosures and admissions, and creates a precise record that can support later investigation, motions, impeachment, plea analysis, and trial.
A preliminary hearing is not a miniature trial. It is also not one uniform proceeding. The federal constitutional floor, the hearing created by a state statute, and the strategic opportunities available to defense counsel are separate questions. Gerstein v. Pugh requires a prompt judicial probable-cause determination after a warrantless arrest, but it does not require that determination to include a full adversarial hearing. Coleman v. Alabama, by contrast, treated Alabama’s adversarial preliminary hearing as a critical stage because counsel could test the showing, preserve testimony, discover the prosecution’s case, and advocate about release.12
Test the showing
Force the prosecution to connect each required element to admissible or statutorily permitted proof.
Protect the client
Avoid unnecessary testimony, premature disclosure, accidental waiver, and unsupported concessions.
Preserve the record
Capture exact testimony, objections, exhibits, offers of proof, findings, and page or timestamp citations.
Prepare what follows
Convert the hearing into assignments for investigation, motions, release advocacy, negotiation, and trial.
Start with the governing hearing, not a generic idea of one
Use a one-page hearing law sheet. It should identify the charging instrument, custody status, statutory deadline, waiver rule, effect of an indictment, burden and standard, permitted hearsay, defense presentation rights, subpoena rights, scope of cross-examination, available motions, possible rulings, transcript procedure, and method for reviewing the ruling.
The distinction between attachment of counsel and the scope of the hearing also matters. Rothgery v. Gillespie County holds that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when the accused first appears before a judicial officer, is told of the charge, and faces a restriction on liberty. That does not mean every event after attachment is automatically a critical stage or that every state must provide an evidentiary preliminary hearing.3
Complaint, indictment, custody, waiver, and timing.
Standard, hearsay, personal knowledge, and statutory substitutes.
Cross, subpoenas, exhibits, defense witnesses, and motions.
Bindover, reduction, dismissal, release, continuance, or preservation.
Reporter, audio, transcript request, exhibits, and rulings.
Motion to quash, habeas, writ, interlocutory review, or renewed motion.
In federal court, Rule 5.1 generally permits the defendant to cross-examine adverse witnesses and introduce evidence at the preliminary hearing, but an indictment can eliminate the Rule 5.1 hearing. State systems diverge far more sharply. California permits qualified-officer hearsay and restricts defense evidence. New York generally requires nonhearsay proof subject to specified exceptions. Pennsylvania permits hearsay for individual elements, yet Commonwealth v. McClelland holds that hearsay alone cannot establish the prima facie case. New Jersey’s ordinary probable-cause hearing may be superseded by indictment and rarely occurs in practice.42426
Define the defense objectives before exposing the defense
A hearing can be useful without becoming an indiscriminate deposition. Write the desired ruling first, then identify the minimum facts needed to support it. Separate objectives into four tiers:
Defeat or narrow the showing
Identify an unsupported element, an identity gap, a missing nexus, an unreliable attribution, a broken chain, a legally insufficient enhancement, or a theory that reaches only a lesser offense.
Prevent avoidable harm
Do not cure the prosecution’s defects, reveal a complete defense theory, waive a claim, create unnecessary client admissions, or give a witness a rehearsal for trial without a concrete return.
Fix useful testimony precisely
Commit a witness to who did what, when, where, from what vantage point, based on which source, and with what degree of certainty.
Advance release, investigation, and motions
Develop facts that bear on detention, suppression, identification, disclosure failures, expert needs, preservation orders, charging negotiations, or trial preparation when the jurisdiction permits.
The correct decision may be a focused hearing, a broader hearing, a strategic waiver, or an urgent attempt to hold the hearing before indictment. The answer turns on the legal opportunity and the cost of using it. Counsel should ask:
- Can this hearing realistically change charge, custody, or case posture?
- Which prosecution witness is likely to give testimony that cannot be reproduced later?
- Will cross reveal a defense theory before investigation is complete?
- Can a narrow admission today become a clean impeachment point later?
- Does the jurisdiction treat the hearing as a discovery tool, or expressly reject that purpose?
- Could testimony from this hearing later be offered if the witness becomes unavailable?
- What is lost if an indictment arrives first?
Build a source-linked record under short notice
When time is short, do not organize by file name. Organize by proposition. Every material proposition should show the required element or issue, the prosecution’s evidence, contrary or limiting evidence, the witness who can establish it, the precise source, and the question or objection it supports.
The officer says Mr. Ramirez exited voluntarily.
“The driver exited the vehicle after repeated requests.”
“I am instructing you to leave the vehicle.”
“You gave Mr. Ramirez a direct instruction to leave the vehicle?”
A tool such as Advocate can place reports, body-camera footage, dispatch audio, jail calls, photographs, transcripts, and structured data into one source-linked record. That can accelerate comparison and retrieval. It does not decide what the hearing permits, whether a conflict is material, or which fact counsel should reveal. Attorney review remains the control layer.
A 72-hour preparation sequence
Inventory and preserve
- List every produced and referenced item.
- Preserve originals and metadata.
- Identify missing video, reports, recordings, photographs, warrants, returns, and laboratory material.
- Confirm witness and subpoena deadlines immediately.
Map law to proof
- Break each offense and enhancement into elements.
- Attach every supporting assertion to a source.
- Mark hearsay layers, personal-knowledge gaps, attribution problems, and contradictions.
- Identify the narrowest route to dismissal, reduction, or a favorable record.
Prepare for live use
- Build witness modules, not a single long outline.
- Pre-open exact pages, timestamps, and exhibits.
- Prepare objections and responsive authority.
- Test the courtroom device, offline backup, printed authorities, and transcript plan.
Prepare each witness around propositions, not chronology
For every expected prosecution witness, build a compact witness file with five layers:
- Role and personal knowledge. What did the witness personally perceive, what came from another person, and what comes only from a report or recording?
- Material propositions. Which element, enhancement, identity fact, foundation, or chain issue depends on this witness?
- Prior statements. Attach exact report language, interview answers, deposition or prior-hearing testimony, and audio or video timestamps.
- Corroboration and conflict. Identify what supports, limits, or contradicts the account, including visual evidence that conflicts even when no one speaks.
- Purpose of each question. Label each sequence: defeat element, limit perception, expose hearsay, preserve admission, authenticate source, support release, or establish foundation for later litigation.
Use leading questions to obtain small commitments where permitted. Avoid broad “what happened next?” invitations unless the answer is likely to help. A preliminary hearing is often the first opportunity to hear a witness under oath, but it is still an adversarial event. A witness who sees the complete defense theory can repair weak language, explain discrepancies, or strengthen the prosecution’s later presentation.
Write the cross in modules
Vantage
Distance, lighting, obstruction, duration, attention, angle, audio, and ability to perceive.
Sequence
Anchor event, order, time, duration, intervening events, and source of timing.
Attribution
Who said it, who recorded it, who relayed it, and whether the witness adopted it.
Omission
Duty to record, importance, opportunity, completeness, and absence from the earlier account.
Conflict
Recommit to today’s answer, identify the source, and confront with exact words or images.
Close
End on the admission. Do not invite an explanation unless it advances the theory.
Protect the Fifth Amendment before deciding whether the client should testify
The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in a criminal case. A preliminary hearing does not create a routine exception. The prosecution generally cannot force the accused to supply the missing proof. The defense can ordinarily challenge the showing through cross-examination, exhibits, third-party witnesses, legal argument, and gaps in the prosecution’s own evidence without putting the client on the stand.
The harder question is waiver. When a defendant voluntarily testifies, the privilege cannot ordinarily be used as both a sword and a shield. Brown v. United States explains that the scope of waiver is measured by the scope of relevant cross-examination made possible by the defendant’s direct testimony. The exact consequences depend on the proceeding and jurisdiction, but the practical rule is simple: the client’s preliminary-hearing testimony may create admissions, impeachment material, investigative leads, and exposure beyond the narrow fact counsel hoped to establish.6
If a document, third-party witness, video, stipulation, proffer, or prosecution admission can establish it, use the lower-risk path.
List every subject the direct examination could open, including conduct before and after the charged event, prior statements, motive, bias, and authentication.
Consider impeachment, trial strategy, sentencing, related investigations, pending matters, immigration consequences, civil exposure, and negotiations.
Do not assume testimony given to litigate one issue is insulated from later use. Simmons v. United States addressed suppression-hearing testimony used to establish Fourth Amendment standing. It does not create blanket immunity for testimony at a preliminary hearing.
Explain the purpose, likely cross, limits of control once testimony begins, possible later uses, and the fact that even truthful testimony can create damaging ambiguity or inconsistency.
Simmons is important but narrow. It held that a defendant’s testimony to establish standing at a suppression hearing could not later be admitted against him at trial on guilt. Before relying on a similar protection elsewhere, research whether the jurisdiction extends it to the precise testimony and proceeding at issue. Texas makes the risk unusually explicit: its examining-trial statute requires the magistrate to advise the accused that a voluntary statement may be used in evidence, and Texas law separately recognizes statements made in an examining trial that complies with Articles 16.03 and 16.04.719
Compare state testimony rules
California
California Penal Code section 866.5 states that the defendant may not be examined at the preliminary examination unless represented by counsel or unless the right to counsel is knowingly waived after advisement. That protection does not make voluntary testimony strategically safe. Defense evidence is limited by section 866, and the record may have later evidentiary consequences. Cal. Penal Code §§ 866 and 866.5
New York
CPL 180.60 gives the defendant a statutory right to testify and makes any testifying defendant subject to cross-examination. The existence of a right to testify is not a recommendation to use it. Counsel should evaluate scope, later use, and alternatives before calling the client. N.Y. CPL 180.60(4), (6)
Pennsylvania
Rule 542(C) permits the defendant to offer evidence and testify. The rule also permits the defense to cross-examine witnesses and call other witnesses, so the client’s testimony should be treated as one option among several, not the ordinary path. Pa.R.Crim.P. 542(C)
Texas
Article 16.03 requires an express warning that the accused cannot be compelled to make a statement and that any statement made may be used in evidence. Article 38.22 also recognizes statements made at an examining trial conducted under Articles 16.03 and 16.04. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ch. 16
Make a record that remains useful at trial
The hearing record can matter long after the bindover ruling. Coleman recognized that cross-examination at a preliminary hearing may create impeachment material and preserve favorable testimony. But later use is not automatic. Former-testimony rules usually require unavailability and a prior right and opportunity to cross with a sufficiently similar motive. The Confrontation Clause may impose additional limits. Barber v. Page rejects an easy substitution of prior testimony for live confrontation when the prosecution has not made a good-faith effort to produce the witness.15
How to preserve testimony for later impeachment
- Identify the witness and basis of knowledge. Separate what the witness saw, heard, inferred, read, or learned from someone else.
- Make the proposition exact. “The driver left voluntarily” is different from “I never gave a command,” “I do not remember giving a command,” and “the report does not record a command.”
- Anchor time and place. Connect the answer to a specific encounter, report, recording, page, line, or timestamp.
- Resolve qualifiers. Clarify “usually,” “approximately,” “to my knowledge,” “I believe,” and other language that can later swallow the apparent inconsistency.
- Mark the source. Ensure the transcript identifies the exhibit and the exact material used. Preserve sufficient context to prevent a misleading fragment.
- Preserve the court’s ruling. State the legal ground, secure a ruling, make an offer of proof where permitted, and ask for findings needed for review.
- Order the transcript immediately. Confirm exhibits, spellings, inaudible portions, and the procedure for correcting the record.
Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) and California Evidence Code section 1291 illustrate the similar-motive problem. A party’s motive to cross at a limited probable-cause hearing may differ from the motive at trial. New York CPL 670.10 expressly includes testimony from a CPL 180.60 felony-complaint hearing among the categories potentially usable when the witness is unavailable, subject to its statutory requirements. Counsel should therefore ask enough to protect the client while recognizing that every strategic limitation in the earlier cross can matter later.81117
Preserve more than testimony
A useful record also includes the charging theory argued by the prosecution, concessions about missing evidence, the court’s understanding of the elements, reasons for admitting hearsay, authentication findings, witness-exclusion issues, continuance grounds, disclosure disputes, exhibits inspected by the court, defense objections, offers of proof, and the precise ruling on each count and enhancement.
Conduct the hearing from one cited command center
In court, retrieval speed protects judgment. Counsel should be able to move from a witness’s answer to the exact report page, prior transcript line, body-camera moment, dispatch segment, photograph, or demonstrative without searching through unlabeled tabs. Keep a printed or offline fallback for every load-bearing source and controlling authority.
“Mr. Ramirez chose to leave the vehicle. I did not order him out.”
Defense: “You are certain you gave no instruction to leave the vehicle?”
Transcript, visual context, surrounding frames, and original file remain linked.
A live comparison system can surface a possible conflict while the witness remains available. The alert is not the impeachment and not a credibility finding. Counsel must open the source, check speaker and context, decide whether the difference is material, apply the jurisdiction’s foundation and evidence rules, and choose whether to use it.
Hearing-room control checklist
- Confirm who carries the burden and what each count requires.
- Ask for witness exclusion or sequestration where available.
- Keep objections tied to the governing hearing rule, not only trial evidence rules.
- Track each element as proof is admitted, limited, or excluded.
- State the citation before opening the source.
- Use one short question per proposition.
- Preserve the basis for hearsay, personal knowledge, authentication, and reliability objections.
- Ask the court to rule separately on each charge and enhancement when procedure permits.
- Make offers of proof and request findings needed for later review.
- Do not rely on a live system without an offline or printed fallback.
Before leaving the courthouse, convert the hearing into the next case plan
The hearing is not finished when the judge rules. Before the day ends, counsel should preserve the transcript request, result by count, release conditions, next dates, exhibit status, objections, rulings, factual concessions, witness changes, disclosure gaps, investigation assignments, motion issues, and client advice.
Secure the receipt
Order the transcript, preserve audio if authorized, confirm exhibits, and note every requested correction.
Update the proof map
Replace predictions with exact testimony and add new conflicts, admissions, gaps, and source links.
Assign the next moves
Investigation, experts, motions, writs, release work, negotiation, client communication, and trial preparation.
When the same source-linked case record is used before and during the hearing, Advocate can draft a first-pass hearing memorandum with testimony citations and an attorney-review task list. Counsel should verify every citation, distinguish testimony from argument, and approve the final work product.
State-by-state preliminary hearing deskbook
These modules highlight major departures, not every local rule. They were checked against linked statutes, rules, and reported decisions on August 18, 2026. Recheck current law, local rules, standing orders, charging posture, and preservation requirements before use.
Compare preliminary-hearing rules by state
California
Hearing and timing. California’s felony preliminary examination is governed principally by Penal Code sections 859b through 883. Section 859b generally sets a 10-court-day period after arraignment or plea unless waived or continued for good cause, with additional statutory detail and consequences.
Proof. Section 872 permits probable cause to rest in whole or in part on qualified law-enforcement testimony relaying out-of-court statements. Whitman v. Superior Court upholds Proposition 115’s qualified-officer hearsay framework while requiring more than a witness who merely reads another officer’s report without the knowledge needed to assist the magistrate’s reliability assessment.
Defense case. Section 866 allows defense evidence reasonably likely to establish an affirmative defense, negate an element, or impeach a prosecution witness or relayed declarant. It expressly states that the preliminary examination is not to be used for discovery. Galindo v. Superior Court recognizes the statutory impeachment path while preserving the hearing’s limited probable-cause function.
Standard and record. People v. Slaughter describes sufficient cause as reasonable and probable cause, a state of facts that would lead a person of ordinary caution to conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of guilt. Former testimony may later implicate Evidence Code section 1291’s unavailability, opportunity, and similar-motive requirements.
Illinois
Hearing gate. Under 725 ILCS 5/109-3.1, a person charged with a felony generally must receive either a preliminary examination or a grand-jury indictment within the statute’s custody-based period. The statute specifies 30 days for a person in custody and 60 days for a person released pretrial, subject to listed exceptions and defendant-caused delay.
Relief and motions. Section 109-3 directs bindover when probable cause appears and discharge when it does not. Illinois is notable because subsection (e) expressly permits the defense to move during the preliminary hearing to suppress evidence under sections 114-11 or 114-12, or to dismiss under section 114-1 or other grounds.
Counsel. People v. Black, relying on Illinois Supreme Court precedent, treated the preliminary hearing as a critical stage where counsel can examine witnesses and learn the prosecution’s strengths and weaknesses. That makes waiver of counsel and self-representation especially consequential.
Michigan
Procedure. MCR 6.110 gives both parties the ability to subpoena and call witnesses, offer proofs, and examine or cross-examine witnesses. It requires a verbatim record of the preliminary examination. Michigan’s rule also contains specified hearsay provisions and procedures for requesting the production of declarants whose statements are introduced.
Standard. MCL 766.13 directs discharge when no offense or probable cause appears and bindover when a felony and probable cause are shown. People v. Yost explains that the prosecution must present evidence of each element or evidence from which the elements may be inferred, under a standard lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Practice point. Build the cross with the verbatim record in mind. Because the magistrate exercises judgment but does not decide ultimate guilt, focus dismissal arguments on the missing element, legally insufficient inference, or absence of probable cause rather than asking the court to conduct a trial.
New Jersey
Do not assume a hearing will occur. New Jersey Rule 3:4-3 provides a probable-cause hearing path, but an indictment can supersede the hearing. Published New Jersey decisions describe the ordinary probable-cause hearing as neither constitutionally required nor an essential part of the prosecution, and note that it rarely occurs.
Defense evidence. In re State ex rel. A.D. states that the defendant has no right to present evidence at a Rule 3:4-3 probable-cause hearing. Do not import a witness-presentation checklist from Pennsylvania, New York, or Michigan.
Practice point. Build an alternative plan around discovery review, detention litigation where applicable, motions, preservation demands, and grand-jury or post-indictment procedure. Confirm whether the event on calendar is a Rule 3:4-3 hearing, a pretrial detention hearing, or something else.
New Jersey Rules of CourtPublished Appellate Division discussion
New York
Hearing proof. CPL 180.60 requires the People to call and examine witnesses. It generally limits proof of reasonable cause to nonhearsay evidence, subject to specified expert, technician, and grand-jury-type exceptions. The court may require live testimony when an allowed hearsay submission is insufficiently reliable in the particular circumstances.
Defense participation. The defendant has the right to be present and testify, may cross-examine witnesses, and may ask the court for permission to call other witnesses or offer other evidence. CPL 180.70 provides for hold, reduction in specified circumstances, or dismissal depending on the showing.
Later testimony. CPL 670.10 includes testimony from a CPL 180.60 felony-complaint hearing among the categories potentially admissible at a later proceeding when statutory unavailability and other requirements are satisfied. People v. Tapia explains the statute’s focus on categories of testimony originally subject to cross-examination.
Current illustration. People v. Ford, a 2026 New York City Criminal Court opinion, applies the reasonable-cause and competent-evidence framework to a felony complaint hearing. Treat it as a trial-court illustration, not Court of Appeals authority.
Pennsylvania
Defense rights. Rule 542 permits counsel, cross-examination, inspection of physical evidence offered against the defendant, defense witnesses, defense evidence, testimony by the defendant, and a written, stenographic, mechanical, or electronic record as authorized by the rule.
Prima facie case and hearsay. Rule 542 allows hearsay to establish individual elements. Commonwealth v. McClelland nevertheless holds that hearsay evidence alone is not enough to establish the prima facie case. That distinction makes a source-by-source hearsay map essential.
Defense presentation. The rule’s comment limits defense witnesses to evidence that negates the existence of a prima facie case, not general discovery of the Commonwealth’s case. Prepare the offer and argument around the missing element or legally insufficient proof.
Texas
Act before indictment. Article 16.01 provides an examining-trial right in a felony case before indictment. State ex rel. Holmes v. Salinas explains that the return of an indictment terminates that right, even when an examining trial is pending, and that the State may seek an indictment while the hearing is pending.
Purpose. Texas decisions describe the examining trial as a probable-cause protection that can also address bail and preserve witness testimony. It may provide practical discovery, but the grand jury can overtake the opportunity.
Fifth Amendment warning. Article 16.03 requires the magistrate to advise the accused that a statement cannot be compelled and that a statement made may be used in evidence. Treat client testimony as a high-risk strategic decision.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ch. 16State ex rel. Holmes v. SalinasRothgery v. Gillespie County
Master preliminary hearing checklist
Law and posture
- Identify the exact proceeding, charging instrument, court, and judicial officer.
- Confirm attachment and scope of the right to counsel.
- Calendar statutory and local deadlines, including subpoena and transcript deadlines.
- Determine whether indictment, waiver, delay, or custody status changes the hearing right.
- Write the burden, standard, hearsay rule, and defense presentation rule on one page.
- Identify available outcomes and the procedure for review.
Case record
- Inventory every produced and referenced source.
- Preserve originals, metadata, chain information, and a clean working copy.
- OCR documents, transcribe audio, and index both spoken and visible events in video.
- Map each offense and enhancement to source-linked proof.
- Separate personal knowledge, hearsay layers, inference, and attorney argument.
- List missing evidence and preservation or production follow-up.
Witnesses and exhibits
- Confirm expected witnesses and issue subpoenas where authorized.
- Prepare role, propositions, prior statements, conflicts, and source citations for each witness.
- Write cross in modular sequences with one purpose per section.
- Prepare authentication, hearsay, personal-knowledge, completeness, and foundation arguments.
- Pre-mark exhibits and prepare the exact page, line, timestamp, or frame.
- Prepare the offer of proof for defense evidence where required.
Client and Fifth Amendment
- Identify every fact counsel believes the client could supply.
- Test whether another source can establish each fact.
- Map the likely scope of cross and possible later uses.
- Research proceeding-specific use or derivative-use protection before relying on it.
- Discuss related cases, sentencing, immigration, civil, and negotiation consequences.
- Document the informed client decision after advice of counsel.
Courtroom and record
- Confirm courthouse technology, recording, transcription, storage, and security rules.
- Bring an offline and printed fallback for every load-bearing source.
- Request witness exclusion or sequestration where appropriate.
- Track proof and rulings count by count.
- State objections, request rulings, and make offers of proof on the record.
- Ask for findings and clarify the disposition of each count and enhancement.
Immediate follow-up
- Order and preserve the transcript and exhibits.
- Update the witness and element maps with exact hearing testimony.
- Calendar review, motion, writ, release, and trial deadlines.
- Assign investigation, experts, discovery follow-up, and preservation work.
- Send the client a clear, privileged explanation of the result and next steps.
- Draft the hearing memorandum with source citations, then verify every citation.
Frequently asked questions
Is a preliminary hearing mainly for discovery?
Not necessarily. California expressly states that its preliminary examination is not for discovery. Other jurisdictions may permit broader examination or produce practical discovery benefits. The controlling statute, rule, and cases must define the objective.
Should the defendant testify?
There is no universal answer, but testimony should not be routine. Counsel should first identify the indispensable fact, alternatives, likely cross, possible waiver, later use, collateral exposure, and jurisdiction-specific protections. The prosecution bears its own burden.
Can preliminary-hearing testimony be used at trial?
Sometimes. Prior inconsistent statement rules, former-testimony exceptions, confrontation, unavailability, similar motive and opportunity to cross, and state statutes all matter. The transcript may also be useful for investigation and impeachment even when it is not admitted as former testimony.
Can counsel litigate suppression at the preliminary hearing?
It depends on jurisdiction. Illinois expressly permits specified suppression and dismissal motions during the preliminary hearing. Other states separate those motions or sharply limit what may be litigated. Check the governing rule before allocating hearing time.
Can AI be used during the hearing?
Only if court rules, orders, device policies, confidentiality obligations, reliability needs, and counsel’s fallback plan permit it. A source-linked tool may accelerate retrieval and comparison. It does not make evidentiary rulings, assess credibility, or replace counsel’s legal judgment.
Authorities and further reading
- Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)
- Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008)
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and current federal criminal rules
- Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (1968)
- Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
- Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(1) and 804(b)(1)
- California Penal Code sections 858 through 883
- California Penal Code section 872
- California Evidence Code section 1291
- Whitman v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 3d 1063 (1991)
- Galindo v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. 4th 1 (2010)
- People v. Slaughter, 35 Cal. 3d 629 (1984)
- New York CPL 180.60
- New York CPL 180.70
- New York CPL 670.10
- People v. Tapia, 33 N.Y.3d 257 (2019)
- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure chapter 16
- State ex rel. Holmes v. Salinas, 784 S.W.2d 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)
- 725 ILCS 5/109-3 and 725 ILCS 5/109-3.1
- Michigan Court Rule 6.110
- People v. Yost, 468 Mich. 122 (2003)
- New Jersey published Appellate Division opinion discussing Rule 3:4-3 and In re State ex rel. A.D.
- Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 542
- Commonwealth v. McClelland, 233 A.3d 717 (Pa. 2020)
- People v. Black, 2011 IL App (5th) 080089
From discovery to the hearing record
Walk into court with every source within reach.
Advocate connects documents, audio, video, and testimony in one attorney-controlled, source-linked case record.
See Advocate live