It's a testament to the volume and nature of Proposition 64 petitions -- which seek to reduce certain prior convictions to a misdemeanor -- that the Court of Appeal has a write a published opinion that says that when the prosecution attempts at the hearing to make a certain required showing (e.g., that the defendant will be dangerous if released), they've got to actually introduce evidence on that point. Not merely argument of counsel.
You'd think that the proposition that "you need to introduce evidence at court hearings" would be a pretty basic one. Intuitive, even. Apparently not.
Lots of this evidence will be subject to judicial notice; prior convictions, etc. But lots of it isn't. In any event, you gotta at least try. Not just merely say things and back 'em up with zip.
Good to know that parties have to introduce actual evidence in the future. A pretty important concept in a judicial system.
