Justice Simons comes off extremely well here.
Everyone agrees on the result. But Justice Simons authors a lengthy concurrence in which he argues that California's precedent on this issue -- involving what it takes for hearsay to be admitted as a declaration against penal interest -- is unfounded and should be changed.
That's the kind of out-of-the-box thinking I like to see. That's nonetheless somewhat rare (though it surely exists) in the Court of Appeal.
