Controversy Over “De-Publishing” Decision

A recent California case, concerning a minor known as “Elias V.,” has highlighted an ongoing debate over the practice of “de-publishing” opinions to keep them outside of precedent. In the Elias V. case, a juvenile’s confession was considered involuntary and could not be used against him. The state’s Attorney General decided not to pursue an appeal, but two other prosecutors wrote to the California Supreme Court, urging the judges to “de-publish” the Elias V. decision, saying it would “cause confusion both in juvenile and adult criminal courts.” The appellate judges who issued the opinion wrote their own letter urging the Court to let the ruling stay in the public record. The Court took six weeks to consider whether or not to review the merits of the case itself, an extraordinary turn of events that some have said represents a de facto backdoor chance for prosecutors to have their case considered in the state’s highest court. Ultimately, though, California’s Supreme Court sided with the appellate opinion.