Equal protection principles had been violated by requiring alleged SVPs to testify during their commitment trials under the SVPA. In prior appeals, appellate courts concluded SVPs and NGIs were similarly situated for purposes of the statutory privilege not to testify at commitment trials.  The cases had been remanded for an evidentiary hearing with directions to apply the strict scrutiny test to the prosecution’s justification that SVPs should be compelled to testify in their commitment trials. The trial court did not err when finding the prosecution failed to prove that the disparate treatment of SVPs is justified under the strict scrutiny test. Affirmed.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D081792.PDF