SERIES 100 PRETRIAL INSTRUCTIONS
F 101.11 DO NOT LET BIAS, SYMPATHY, ETC. INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 101.11 Inst 1 No Bias Or Prejudice: Jurors Not Required To Reach A Decision
F 101.11 Inst 2 No Bias Or Prejudice
F 101.11 Inst 3 No Bias Against The Disabled
Return to Series 100 Table of Contents.
F 101.11 Inst 1 No Bias Or Prejudice: Jurors Not Required To Reach A Decision
*Modify CC 101, paragraph 11, as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
Do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision you.
Points and Authorities
CALCRIM 101, paragraph 11, erroneously suggests that the jurors will or should make a “decision.” (See FORECITE F 100.7 Inst 1.)
Identification Of Parties—See FORECITE 100.2 Note 1.
See also FORECITE F 100.7 Inst 2; FORECITE PG IX(J).
F 101.11 Inst 2 No Bias Or Prejudice
*Add to CC 101:
You must consider and decide this case fairly and impartially. You should not be prejudiced for or against a person because of that person’s race, religion, political or social views, wealth or poverty. You should not even consider such matters. Also, do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision.
Points and Authorities
Bias In General—See generally In re Hitchings (1993) 6 C4th 97, 118, fn 6; see also People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 C4th 466, 477-78 [trial court has duty to inquire if put on notice that juror may not be able to perform his or her duty]; People v. Barber (2002) 102 CA4th 145; People v. Hightower (2001) 94 CA4th 998 [juror note triggered duty to inquire and conduct further investigation]; U.S. v. Herndon (6th Cir. 1998) 156 F3d 629; Dyer v. Calderon (9th Cir. 1998) 151 F3d 970 [state trial judge failed to conduct an adequate investigation into juror’s alleged bias after information surfaced during trial calling into question the veracity of the juror’s voir dire answers]; Fields v. Woodford (9th Cir. 2002) 281 F3d 963 [juror whose wife had been kidnapped and raped may have been biased during murder trial]; Deerings EC 350, “Suggested Form.”
See also FORECITE F 101.10 Inst 1.
Racial Bias—In cases where racial issues are likely to be inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial (e.g., black defendant, white victim) the court should conduct voir dire on the issue of racial bias. Such cases “are the type of special circumstance in which ‘an impermissible threat to the fair trial guaranteed by due process is posed by a trial court’s refusal to question prospective jurors specifically about racial prejudice during voir dire.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Wilborn (1999) 70 CA4th 339, 347; see also People v. Mello (2002) 97 CA4th 511.)
Identification Of Parties—See FORECITE 100.2 Note 1.
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case.
Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 6.16 [Racial Bias]
FORECITE CG 7.3 [Consideration Of Matters Not Admitted Into Evidence]
FORECITE CG 7.5 [Fair And Unbiased Jury]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 101.11 Inst 3 No Bias Against The Disabled
*Add to CC 101:
You must not be biased against the defendant due to [his] [her] disabilities, including brain injury, epilepsy, and learning disabilities.
Points and Authorities
In People v. Holt (1997) 15 C4th 619, 687, the supreme court concluded that there was no duty to instruct the jury that it must not be biased against the defendant due to his disabilities, including brain injury, epilepsy, and learning disabilities. In so doing, the court rejected the argument that such an instruction is required by the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC §12101 et seq.) [ADA] because it was enacted on July 26, 1990, after the trial in Holt’s case. For cases tried after July 26, 1990, the issue remains viable.
Identification Of Parties—See FORECITE 100.2 Note 1.
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case.
Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 7.3 [Consideration Of Matters Not Admitted Into Evidence]
FORECITE CG 7.5 [Fair And Unbiased Jury]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 1.00j.
