Return to CALJIC Part 1-2 – Contents
F 0.50 n1 Pretrial Admonition. For additional discussion, see FORECITE CHK V – checklist re: preinstruction (PC 1122(a)).
F 0.50 n2 Pretrial Admonition: Admonition Not To Converse During Voir Dire.
(This entry has been renumbered FORECITE F 0.25 n3.)
F 0.50 n3 Pre-trial Instructions: Additional References.
For additional pretrial instructions and issues, see FORECITE F 1.00a,F 1.00b, F 1.00c, F 1.00d, F 1.00e, F 1.00f, F 1.00g, F 1.00h, F 1.00i, F 1.00 n1, F 1.00 n2, F 1.00 n3, F 1.00 n4, F 1.00 n5 and CHK V [PC 1122(a) Checklist re: Preinstruction]. For Post-trial instructions, see FORECITE F 17.90 et seq.
F 0.50 n4 Pre-trial Discovery Of Prosecution’s Theory Of Culpability And Instructions. Rule 4.200(a) (formerly Rule 228.1.) requires a pre-voir dire conference in criminal cases during which the court must determine “the People’s theory of culpability and the defendant’s theories.” Moreover, in order to meaningfully voir dire the prospective jurors, defense counsel must be able to question prospective jurors about their ability to apply jury instructions on the legal doctrines of the case. (See People v. Balderas (85) 41 C3d 144, 182 [222 CR 184].)
F 0.50 n5 Constitutional Challenge To Referring To Jurors By Number. Even though People v. Goodwin (97) 59 CA4th 1084 [69 CR2d 576] rejected a constitutional challenge to the standard Los Angeles County procedure of referring to jurors by number, the issue has yet to be resolved by the California Supreme Court or in Federal court. Hence, continued constitutional objection to the procedure should be considered. (See constitutional arguments in FORECITE F 0.50b.)
F 0.50 n6 Pretrial Admonition: When Victim’s Identity Is Withheld (PC 293.5).
[See FORECITE F 1.12a.]
F 0.50 n7 Whether Audience Seating Arrangement Necessitates Cautionary Instruction.
In some circumstances the court’s requirement of special seating arrangements may imply that the defendant’s friends and associates are dangerous. (Cf. People v. Carter (2003) 30 C4th 1166, 1202 [record does not suggest the move would have been interpreted as a security measure].) In such cases it may be appropriate to inform the jury that the seating rules are standard procedure to counter prejudicial juror speculation. (See e.g., FORECITE F 0.50b, F 0.50c, F 1.04a, F 2.008a.)
F 0.50a Pre-trial Admonition: Note-taking Regarding Jury Instructions. *Add to the end of CJ 0.50 paragraph regarding note taking:
However, do not take notes regarding any jury instructions which I have given or may in the future give to you.
Points and Authorities
(See FORECITE F 1.05c.)
F 0.50b Reference To Juror By Number Without Showing Of Good Cause Under CCP 237 (Los Angeles County Procedure).
See FORECITE F 101.1 Inst 1.
F 0.50c Reference To Juror By Number Based On Showing Of Good Cause Under CCP 237.
See FORECITE F 101.1 Inst 2.
F 0.50e
Duty Not To Converse: Expanded Explanation
*Add to CJ 0.50, paragraph 11:
You must not discuss this case with any other person, including, but not limited to, persons with whom you may have a close or confidential relationship such as spouses, spiritual leaders or advisers, or therapists. If anyone, other than a fellow juror during deliberations, makes statements about the case in your presence, report that conversation immediately to the court.
Points and Authorities
See People v. Danks (2004) 32 C4th 269, 307 [“Because jurors instructed not to speak to anyone about the case except a fellow juror during deliberations (CALJIC Nos. 0.50, 1.03) may assume such an instruction does not apply to confidential relationships, we recommend the jury be expressly instructed [on this point]”].
NOTE: The above language is adapted from the language suggested in the Danks opinion.
