People v. Tineo

1 Citing case

  1. Davis v. L.E. Scribner

    CIV S-08-473 GEB CHS P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2010)

    However, cell phone evidence has been introduced for that purpose in a number of cases, including one in California that was reported well before defendant's trial, without any concern for the validity of the underlying science. ( People v. Martin (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 408, 412 [prosecution "relied on [the defendant's] cell phone records to establish his location during the crucial time period"]; U.S. v. Wasielak (11th Cir. 2005) 139 Fed.Appx. 187, 193 [records showed defendant made cell phone calls in city where thefts occurred]; People v. Tineo (N.Y.Sup. Oct. 28, 2005, No. 2762-2004) 2005 WL 3636712, [records showed that defendant's and victim's cell phones were in "same general area'" at time of murder]; State v. Tran (Minn.2006) 712 N.W.2d 540, 543-545 [records indicated that defendant was in victim's neighborhood on afternoon of murder]; Wilson v. State (2006) 195 S.W.3d 193, 196-197 [records showed defendant "traveling from the vicinity of his residence to the vicinity of the victim's residence during the time period in question"]; State v. Seymour (Ohio Ct.App. Jul. 14, 2004, No. 03-CA-37) 2004 WL 1614891, [defendant made call from cell sector where victim's body was found]; Pantazes v. State (Md.Ct.App.2001) 785 A.2d 865, 872 [cell phone call not likely a cry for help because it was not made from victim's house]; see also People v. Vu (Oct. 6, 2006, No. G035831) 143 Cal.App.4th 1009 [2006 WL 2847792].) The California Court of Appeal noted that "[n]either the instant c