P. v. Duran
Annotate this Case
Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder in 1984 for a gang-related stabbing petitioned for relief under Penal Code section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95), and proceeded to an evidentiary hearing. The People introduced statements Defendant made to a psychologist in 2013 during a parole risk assessment interview. Defendant argued that admitting his prior statements was an error because those statements are (1) inadmissible under a judicially crafted “use immunity” doctrine, and (2) involuntary under the due process clause.
The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief under Penal Code section 1172.6. The court held Defendant’s statement to the psychologist was not involuntary under due process. A finding that Defendant’s statement was involuntary means it would have been inadmissible at the parole hearing itself because involuntary statements are, by definition, coerced and utterly unreliable. Yet Defendant is not asserting that his 2013 interview statement should not have been considered at the parole hearing. At the bottom, Defendant seems to be urging us to construe the due process clause as a sort of “super use immunity” that would preclude the use of his prior statement even to impeach. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s order.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.