SERIES 200 POST-TRIAL: INTRODUCTORY
F 221 NOTES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 221 Note 1 Prosecution’s Burden Should Be Included In Pretrial Instructions On Jurors Duties
F 221 Note 2 Whether “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Should Be Defined
F 221 Note 3 Alternative Definition Of Reasonable Doubt
F 221 Note 4 Improper To Describe Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt In Terms Of “Every Day” Decisions
F 221 Note 5 Error To Instruct Jury That Defendant Is Presumed Not Guilty
F 221 Note 6 Counsel Has Duty To Challenge CALCRIM 103 Notwithstanding View Of Intermediate California Appellate Court That The Issue Is Frivolous
F 221 Note 7 Pretrial Instructions During Voir Dire: Impact On Jury Instruction Errors At Trial
F 221 Note 8 Equal Protection Challenge To CALCRIM 103 Based On Bush v. Gore (2000) 531 US 98 [148 LEd2d 388; 121 SCt 525]
F 221 Note 9 No State Has Reduced Reasonable Doubt To A Feeling Of An “Abiding Conviction” In The Truth Of The Charge As “Satisfactorily” Shown
F 221 Note 10 CALJIC 2.90 Unconstitutionally Admonishes the Jury That a Possible Doubt Is Not a Reasonable Doubt
F 221 Note 11 Precluding Prosecutor From Unduly Emphasizing Instructional Language Regarding “Mere Possible Or Imaginary Doubt”
Return to Series 200 Table of Contents.
F 221 Note 1 Prosecution’s Burden Should Be Included In Pretrial Instructions On Jurors Duties
See FORECITE F 103 Note 1.
F 221 Note 2 Whether “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Should Be Defined
See FORECITE F 103 Note 2.
F 221 Note 3 Alternative Definition Of Reasonable Doubt
See FORECITE F 103 Note 2.
F 221 Note 4 Improper To Describe Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt In Terms Of “Every Day” Decisions
See FORECITE F 103 Note 4.
F 221 Note 5 Error To Instruct Jury That Defendant Is Presumed Not Guilty
See FORECITE F 103 Note 5.
F 221 Note 6 Counsel Has Duty To Challenge CALCRIM 103 Notwithstanding View Of Intermediate California Appellate Court That The Issue Is Frivolous
See FORECITE F 103 Note 6.
F 221 Note 7 Pretrial Instructions During Voir Dire: Impact On Jury Instruction Errors At Trial
See FORECITE F 103 Note 7.
F 221 Note 8 Equal Protection Challenge To CALCRIM 103 Based On Bush v. Gore (2000) 531 US 98 [148 LEd2d 388; 121 SCt 525]
See FORECITE F 103 Note 8.
F 221 Note 9 No State Has Reduced Reasonable Doubt To A Feeling Of An “Abiding Conviction” In The Truth Of The Charge As “Satisfactorily” Shown
See FORECITE F 103 Note 9.
F 221 Note 10 CALJIC 2.90 Unconstitutionally Admonishes The Jury That A Possible Doubt Is Not A Reasonable Doubt
See FORECITE F 103 Note 10.
F 221 Note 11 Precluding Prosecutor From Unduly Emphasizing Instructional Language Regarding “Mere Possible Or Imaginary Doubt”
See FORECITE F 103 Note 11.
