Bibliography – General
ALERT: This portion of the bibliography contains general resource materials. Please refer to the CALJIC Number Bibliography immediately following for materials relating to specific instructions.
Annotations* and Articles
* “ALR” annotations have a “Later Case Service” and/or pocket part which should also be consulted.
Abortion (BIBLIO AB)
The Death of An Unborn Child: Jurisprudential Inconsistencies in Wrongful Death, Criminal Homicide, and Abortion Cases. M.S. Klasing, 22 Pepp. L. Rev 933-79 April 1995.
Instruction, in prosecution based on abortion, as to limited effect of evidence of commission of similar crimes by accused, 15 ALR2d 1113.
Appeal (BIBLIO AP)
A Restatement of Exceptions to the Preservation of Error Requirement in Criminal Cases, Derrick Augustus Carter, 46 U. Kan. L. Rev. 947, June 1998
Codefendant: Right of defendant to complain, on appellate review, of instructions favoring codefendant, 60 ALR2d 524.
Cure of error, in instruction as to one offense, by conviction of higher or lesser offense, modern status of law regarding, 15 ALR4th 118.
How to Preserve and Strengthen Issues for Appeal, Bay Area Community Law Foundation and The National Lawyers Guild (Oct. 1994).
Inconsistent Jury Instructions (Survey of Washington Law) [case note: Caruso v. Local Union 690, International Brotherhood of Teamsters 730 (Wash. 1987) 730 P.2d. 1299], Lyon, 23 Gonzaga L.Rev. 671, Oct. 1988.
When a Trial Court Issues Conflicting Instructions to a Jury, Error Results Which Must be Tested for Reversal by the Harmless-Beyond-a-Reasonable-Doubt Test (Cal. Sup. Ct. Survey Mar. – Aug. 1987), Stump, 15 Pepperdine L.Rev. 283, Jan. 1988.
Burden of Proof (BIBLIO B)
Adverse presumption or inference based on state’s failure to produce or examine informant in criminal prosecution–modern cases, 80 ALR4th 547.
Supreme Court’s views as to prejudicial effect in criminal case of erroneous instructions to jury involving burden of proof or presumptions, 92 L. Ed. 2d 862.
Validity, under Federal Constitution, of criminal statute or ordinance making one fact presumptive or prima facie evidence of another–federal cases, 23 L. Ed. 2d 812.
Conspiracy (BIBLIO C)
A Portable Guide to Federal Conspiracy Law; Developing Strategies for Criminal and Civil Cases, McSorley, American Bar Association Section of Criminal Justice, (1996).
Defenses in General (BIBLIO D)
Alternative Defenses: The “Invisible Burden” on the Trial Judge, Doran, 1991 Crim.L.Rev. 878, Dec. 1991.
Black Rage Confronts The Law, (Black Rage Defense), Paul Harris, New York University Press, NY 1997
The Circuit Split Over Instructing the Jury Specifically on the Good Faith Defense: A Consequence of Superlegislation by Courts or the Standards of Appellate Review? D.S. Jonas, 46 Syracuse L. Rev. 61-101 ’95.
Criminal Law Defenses: A Systematic Analysis, Robinson, 82 Columbia L. Rev. 199, 1982.
Cultural Defense: Limited Admissibility for New Immigrants. V. Ma, 3 San Diego Just. J. 461-84 Summer 1995.
Cultural Defense of False Stereotype? What Happens When Latina Defendants Collide With the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, K.L. Holmquist, 12 Berkely Women’s L.J. 45-72, 1997.
Feasibility and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses. 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1111-26 March 1995.
On Multiculturalism, Concepts of Crime, and the “De Minimis” Defense. S. Pomorski. 1997 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 51-99. 1997.
The Cultural Defense And The Problem Of Cultural Preemption: A Framework For Analysis, 27 N.M. L. Rev. 101 (1997).
Empirical Research (BIBLIO E)
Dictionaries and Death: Do Capital Jurors Understand Mitigation? P.M. Tiersma, 1995 Utah L. Rev. 1-49, 1995.
Do Jurors Follow Instructions? An Experiment Using the Randomized Response Technique to Determine Whether Jurors Obey the Instruction Not the Discuss Their Case Before Deliberations (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible) [panel discussion], Loftus, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 359, Summer 1987.
Do Jurors Understand Criminal Jury Instructions? Analyzing the Results of the Michigan Juror Comprehension Project, Kramer and Koenig, 23 U. Mich. J. Legal Reform 401, Spring 1990.
The Empirical, Historical and Legal Case Against the Cautionary Instruction: A Call for Legislative Reform, Morris, 1988 Duke L.J. 154, February 1988.
Experiments in the Second Circuit with Techniques for Aiding Juror Comprehension (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Sand, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 325, Summer 1987.
How Well Do Jurors Understand Jury Instructions? A Field Test Using Real Juries And Real Trials In Wyoming, Saxon, 33 Land & Water L. Rev. 59 (1998)
Inducing Jurors to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Legal Explanation Does Not Help, K.L. Pickel, 19 Law & Hum. Behav. 407-24 Aug. ’95.
Instructing Jurors: A Field Experiment with Written and Preliminary Instructions, Heuer and Penrod, 13 L. and Human Behavior 409, Dec. 1989.
“The Jury Will Disregard. . .” But New Study Suggests That By Then It’s Too Late [ABA Foundation research on whether jurors follow judge’s admonition to disregard certain evidence, includes related article], Marcotte, 73 ABA J. 34, Nov. 1, 1987.
Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions, 79 Colum. L.Rev. 1306, 1979.
Law Reform by Courts, Legislatures, and Commissions Following Empirical Research on Jury Instructions, Tanford, 25 L. & Society Rev. 155, Feb. 1991.
The Legal System’s Assumptions Versus the Psychological Realities of Jury Functioning: How Changes in Judicial Instructions Might Improve Jury Decision-Making (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Wrightsman, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 359, Summer 1987.
Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions, Charrow and Charrow, 79 Colum. L.Rev. 1306, 1979.
Necessity and sufficiency of cautionary instructions, in prosecution for rape, as to evidence of other similar offense, 77 ALR2d 906.
Similar Fact Evidence and Limited Use Instructions: An Empirical Investigation [Canada], Schaefer and Hansen, 14 Crim.L.J. 157, June 1990.
Symposium: How Do Judges Decide? A Course for Non-Lawyers, 106 Dick. L. Rev. 773 (2002).
Thinking About Elephants: Admonitions, Empirical Research and Legal Policy, Tanford, 60 UMKC L.Rev. 645, Summer 1992.
The University of Washington Juror Instruction Project: Some Research Conclusions (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Greene, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 291, Summer 1987.
What Social Science Teaches Us About The Jury Instruction Process, Joel D. Lieberman and Bruce D. Sales, 3 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 589, December, 1997
Forfeiture (BIBLIO F)
Forfeitability of property, under Uniform Controlled Substances Act or similar statute, where property or evidence supporting forfeiture was illegally seized, 1 ALR5th 346.
State and Federal Forfeiture Actions: Winning Against the Odds, Barnett, CACJ Desktop Manual, 1993, pp. 17 – 122.
Former Jeopardy (BIBLIO FJ)
Applicability of double jeopardy to juvenile court proceedings, 5 ALR4th 234.
Conviction or acquittal in federal court as bar to prosecution in state court for state offense based on same facts–modern view, 6 ALR4th 802.
Conviction or acquittal of attempt to commit particular crime as bar to prosecution for conspiracy to commit same crime, or vice versa, 53 ALR2d 622.
Double jeopardy as bar to retrial after grant of defendant’s motion for mistrial, 98 ALR3d 997.
Double jeopardy: Various acts of weapons violations as separate or continuing offense, 80 ALR4th 631.
Earlier prosecution for offense during which homicide was committed as bar to prosecution for homicide, 11 ALR3d 834.
Former jeopardy as ground for prohibition, 94 ALR2d 1048.
Supreme Court’s views as to application, in state criminal prosecutions, of double jeopardy clause of Federal Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, 95 L. Ed. 2d 924.
U.S. v. Dixon (93) 113 SCt 2849 — Finally A “Bright Line Rule” In Double Jeopardy Analysis. R.A. Blake, 58 Tex. B.J. 453-4+ May 1995.
Grand Jury (BIBLIO G)
And the Walls Came Tumbling Down: Sharing Grand Jury Information with the Intelligence Community under the USA PATRIOT Act, 39 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1261 (2002).
Closing Remarks: Justice Chase’s Charge to the Grand Jury (The Bicentennial of the U. S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Maryland 1790 – 1990), Rehnquist, 50 Maryland L.Rev. 75, Winter 1991.
Duty of Prosecutor To Present Exculpatory Evidence To State Grand Jury. Sharon N. Humble, 49 ALR5th 639.
A Proposed Addition to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Requiring the Disclosure of the Prosecutor’s Legal Instructions to the Grand Jury, 38 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1443 (2001).
Instruction Procedure (see also When to Instruct; and 17.40 – 17.50 Supplemental Instructions, Etc.) (BIBLIO I)
Criminal Procedure (Jury Instructions) [California Supreme Court Survey, Jan. – Mar. 1989], 17 Pepperdine L.Rev. 282, Dec. 1989.
Necessity for Trial Judge to Make Communications to Jury as a Whole [Great Britain], Starke, 62 Australian L.J. 566, July 1988.
Objections to instructions: When does trial court’s noncompliance with requirement of Rule 30, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, that opportunity shall be given to make objection to instructions upon request, out of presence of jury, constitute prejudicial error, 55 ALR Fed 726.
The Place of Primacy in Persuading Jurors: Timing of Judges’ Instructions and Impact of Opening Statements (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible) [panel discussion], Wrightsman, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 279, 1987.
Pretrial conference instructions affected by court’s order entered after, 22 ALR3d 601.
Proposed action: Court’s duty to inform counsel of proposed action on requested instructions under Rule 30 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 40 ALR Fed 495.
“What Do We Do Now?”: Helping Juries Apply The Instructions. C.N. May, 28 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 869-901 April 1995.
Language/Drafting of Instructions (BIBLIO L)
The Craft of Drafting Plain-Language Jury Instructions: A Study of Sample Pattern Instruction on Obscenity, Wilcox, 59 Temple L.Q. 1159, Winter 1986.
Effective Instructions: Put Them in Writing (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Cramer, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 335, Summer 1987.
A. Elword, B. Sales & J. Alfini, Making Jury Instructions Understandable, Charrow & Charrow, 1982.
Experiments in the Second Circuit with Techniques for Aiding Juror Comprehension (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Sand, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 325, Summer 1987.
The Florida Judge-Jury Communication Project (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Buchanan, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 297, Summer 1987.
Guidelines for Drafting Understandable Jury Instructions: An Introduction to the Use of Psycholinguistics, Inwinkelried and Schwed, 23 Crim.L.Bull. 135, March-April 1987.
Instructing Jurors: A Field Experiment with Written and Preliminary Instructions, Heuer and Penrod, 13 L. and Human Behavior 409, Dec. 1989.
Instructive Interrogatories: One Method to Aid the Jury (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible) [panel discussion], Berdon, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 385, Summer 1987.
An Introduction to the University of Washington Juror Instruction Project (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Loftus, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 287, Summer 1987.
The Judge as a Communicator (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible) [panel discussion], Buchanan, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 395, Summer 1987.
The Judge as an Educator (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible) [panel discussion], Strawn, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 371, Summer 1987.
Judges, Juries and the Meaning of Words, Briggs, 5 Leg.Stud. 314, Nov. 1985.
Juries Are Smarter Than You Think; They Can Apply the Law When It’s Written in English (Calif.), Kelly, 15 Los Angeles Lawyer 20, Nov. 1992.
Jury Instructions: A Consistent Failure to Communicate, Steele and Thornburg, 67 N. Carolina L.Rev. 78, 1988.
Jury Instructions: A Persistent Failure to Communicate, Steele and Thornburg, 74 Judicature 249, Feb.-Mar. 1991.
Jury Instructions Must be Cast so that Juries will Interpret Presumptions as Permissive (Annual Survey of S. Carolina Law: Jan. 1 -Dec. 31, 1987), Smith, 40 S. Carolina L.Rev. 60, Autumn 1988.
Jury Instructions: Plainer Is Better. C.G. Robbins, 32 Trial 32. April 1996.
Jury Instructions: The Time for Understanding [Illinois], Peccarelli, 76 Ill.B.J. 282, Jan. 1988.
Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions, 79 Colum. L.Rev. 1306, 1979.
The Law and Psychology of Jury Instructions, Tanford, 69 Neb.L.Rev. 71, Winter 1990.
Linguistics and the Jury (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Charrow, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 303, Summer 1987.
Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions, Charrow and Charrow, 79 Colum. L.Rev. 1306, 1979.
The Movement for Better Jury Instructions: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography for Lawyers (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Wilcox, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 457, Summer 1987.
Real Juror’s Understanding of the Law in Real Cases, Reifman, Gusick and Ellsworth, 16 L. and Human Behavior 539, Oct. 1992.
Some Guidelines for Clear Legal Writing (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Charrow, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 409, Summer 1987.
Some Practical Perspectives on Instruction Reform (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible) [panel discussion], Lazer, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 409, Summer 1987.
The Submission of Written Instructions and Statutory Language to New York Criminal Juries, Schwaiger, 56 Brooklyn L.Rev. 1353, Winter 1991.
Ten Practical Suggestions About Federal Jury Instructions, Devitt, 38 F.R.D. 75, 1965.
Toward Criminal Jury Instructions that Jurors Can Understand, Severance and Loftus, 75 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 198, 1984.
“What Do We Do Now?”: Helping Juries Apply The Instructions. C.N. May, 28 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 869-901 April 1995.
Why and How to Instruct a Jury, Milholland, 45 J. Missouri B. 569, Dec. 1989.
Miscellaneous (BIBLIO M)
Adequacy of defense counsel’s representation of criminal client regarding hypnosis and truth tests, 9 ALR4th 354.
After the DNA Wars: A Mopping Up Operation, Richard Lempert, 31 Israel L.Rev. 536 (1997).
Against “Overwhelming” Appellate Activism: Constraining Harmless Error Review, 82 Cal. L. Rev. 1335.
A Judge’s Thoughts About Criminal Instructions (Michigan), Elliott, 5 Cooley L.Rev. 23, Jan. 1988.
Ake v. Oklahoma (85) 105 SCt 1087 and Harmless Error: The Case For a Per Se Rule of Reversal. M.J. Lorenger, 81 Va. L. Rev. 521-64 March 1995.
Alias: Jury instructions on propriety and effect in criminal case, 87 ALR2d 1217.
A Matter Of Life And Death: Revising The Harmless Error Standard For Habeas Corpus Proceedings, David M. Bowman, 72 Wash. L. Rev. 567, April, 1997.
An Essay on Criminal Liability for Dutyless Omissions That Cause Results, D. L. Rotenberg. 62 Brook. L. Rev. 1159-63. Fall 1996.
Apprendi and Plea Bargaining, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 295 (2001).
A Primer On Prejudicial Error: The Applicable Tests And How To Satisfy Them, by Dallas Sacher [FORECITE Article Bank #A-84.]
An Exercise In Sound Descretion: Old Chief v. United States, Kathryn Cameron Walton, 76 N.C. L. Rev. 1053, March 1998
Annual Review of Developments in Instructions, Green, Army Lawyer 34, April 1989.
Annual Review of Developments in Instructions, Green, Army Lawyer 47, April 1990.
Annual Review of Developments in Instructions, Green, Army Lawyer 10, April 1991.
Annual Review of Developments in Instructions, Green, Army Lawyer 23, April 1992.
Antagonistic defenses as ground for separate trials of codefendants in criminal case, 83 ALR3d 245, supp. secs. 5, 9.5, 10, 30, and Later Case Service.
Beyond Statutory Elements: the Substantive Effects of the Right to a Jury Trial on Constitutionally Significant Facts, 90 Va. L. Rev. 645 (2004).
Black/Parallel Markets: When is a Money Exchanger a Money Launderer. W. Parker III. 13 Dick. J. Int’l. L. 423-39 Spring 1995.
“But Perry Mason Made It Look So Easy!”: The Admissibility of Evidence Offered by a Criminal Defendant to Suggest That Someone Else is Guilty, David McCord, 63 Tenn L Rev 917, 936 [Summer 1996].
Breaking the Silence: Should Jurors be Allowed to Question Witnesses during Trial? Berkowitz (1990).
“Camping Ordinances” and The Homeless: Constitutional And Moral Issues Raised By Ordinances Prohibiting Sleeping In Public Areas. R.C. McConkey III, 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 633-38 ’95/’96.
Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1251 (2005).
The Case of the Confused Jury [case note: U.S. v. DeLorean (E.D. Mich. 1986) No. 85-80646, Howell, 1988 Detroit College of L.Rev. 97, Spring 1988.
A Ceiling Or Consistency Effect For The Comprehension Of Jury Instructions, Peter W. English, Bruce D. Sales, 3 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 381, June/September, 1997.
Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine (1985) Kadish, 73 Cal.L.Rev. 323, 337
The Confounding Boundaries of “Apprendi-land”: Statutory Minimums and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 29 Am. J. Crim. L. 377 (2002).
The Constitutionality of International Delegations, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 1492 (2004).
Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial, Connors, Lundregan, Miller and McEwen, National Institute of Justice Research Report, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996.
Counsel’s right in criminal prosecution to argue law or to read lawbooks to the jury, 67 ALR2d 245.
Court Interpreting — Publications & Resource Material Research Services: Court Interpretation: Model Guides for Policy and Practice in the State Courts, National Center For State Courts (http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/publications/Res_CtInte_ModelGuidePub.pdf)
Crime Prototypes, Objective Versus Subjective Culpability, and a Common Sense Balance. N.J. Finkel, J.L. Groscup. 21 Law & Hum. Behav. 209-30, April 1997.
Crimes By Health Care Providers (Insurance Fraud), P.H. Bucy U. Ill. L. Rev. 589-665, 1996.
Criminal Responsibility, 21 Mental & Physical Disability L. Rep. 574, September/October 1997.
Criminal Procedure – Habeas Corpus – Ninth Circuit Holds That the Supreme Court’s Decision in Ring v. Arizona Applies Retroactively to Cases on Habeas Corpus Review, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 1291 (2004).
The Crucible of Adversarial Testing: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Unauthorized Concessions of Client’s Guilt, 24 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 315 (2002)
Custis v. U.S.: Are Unconstitutional Prior Convictions Being Used to Increase Prison Terms? 25 Gold. Gate U. L. Rev. 267-295 Spring 1995.
Deception — Direction to Jury [Great Britain], Knapman and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 436, June 1989.
Deception — Dishonesty — Circumstances Where Ghosh Direction Necessary [Great Britain], Rees and Smith, Crim.L.Rev. 200, March 1990.
Distinguishing Speech From Conduct, 45 Mercer L. Rev. 621 (1994).
DNA Typing: Emerging Or Neglected Issues, 76 Wash. L. Rev. 413 (2001).
Double Helix, Double Bind: Factual Innocence and Postconviction Dna Testing, 151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 547 (2002).
The Effect Of Sullivan v. Louisiana On Harmless Error Analysis of Jury Instructions That Omit An Element of the Offense, Benjamin E. Rosenberg 29 Rutgers L.J. 315, Winter, 1998
Eliminating the (Absurd) Distinction Between Malum In Se and Malum Prohibitum Crimes, R.L. Gray, 73 Wash. U. L.Q. 1369-98, Fall ’95.
Environmental Crimes: Recent Case Law and Practice, B.J. Hopkins, 39 A.F.L. Rev. 664-737 (May 1996).
Essential Elements (Apprendi),” by Nancy J. King and Susan R. Klein (May 2001) (http://law.vanderbilt.edu/lawreview/vol544/king.pdf)
Exclusion of public from state criminal trial by conducting trial or part thereof at other than regular place or time, 70 ALR4th 632.
Factors That Influence Jury Decision Making: Disposition Instructions and Mental State At The Time of the Trial. K. E. Whittemore & J.R.P. Ogloff, 19 Law & Hum. Behav. 283-303 June 1995.
Failure To Instruct The Jury On Venue, When Requested, Constitutes Reversible Error, Notwithstanding Venue Subsumed By A Guilty Verdict [United States v. Miller, 111 F3d 747 (10th Cir. 1997)], Scott A. Liljegren 37 Washburn L.J. 439, Winter 1998
Federalism and the Family After Morrison: An Examination of the Child Support Recovery Act, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, and a Federal Law Outlawing Gun Possession by Domestic Violence Abusers, 25 Harv. Women’s L.J. 57 (2002).
Forcible Administration of Antipsychotic Medication to Pretrial Detainees — Federal Cases, 188 A.L.R. Fed. 285, secs. 2, 5, 6(b), 8, 9(a), 9(b), 11(a), 11(b).
Free Exercise Rights Of Capital Jurors, 101 Colum. L. Rev. 569 (2001).
Good Intentions [instructions to juries, Great Britain], Halpin, 137 New L.J. 696, July 24, 1987.
The Hearsay Rule – Determining When Evidence Is Hearsay or Nonhearsay and Determining its Relevance as One or the Other, 30 U. West. L.A. L. Rev. 135 (1999).
How to Win Cases at Trial (And Preserve Issues for Trial Just in Case . . .) By Creative Use of Jury Instructions, Stanley, CACJ Desktop Reference Manual, 155-174, 1989.
The Human Side of the Judge-Jury Relationship: An Introspection (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible) [panel discussion], Freedman, 8 U. of Bridgeport L. Rev. 279, 1987.
Inadequate Direction to the Jury [Great Britain], Davies, 54 J.Crim. L. 51, Feb. 1990.
In Search of a Standard of Review: Decisions to Forcibly Medicate Pre-trial Detainees in Light of Riggins V. Nevada, 72 U. Cin. L. Rev. 285 (2003).
Instructions and Advocacy, Warren and Jewell, 126 Mil. L.Rev. 147, Fall 1989.
Instructions [Master Advocate’s Edition], Becker, 27 Air Force L.Rev. 197, 1987.
Judging Terror in the “Zone of Twilight”: Exigency, Institutional Equity, and Procedure after September 11, 84 B.U.L. Rev. 383 (2004).
Juries as Judges of Criminal Law, Howe, Mark, DeWolfe, 52 Harv. L. Rev. 582-616.
Jury Instructions: A Bibliography Part II: Criminal Jury Instructions, Nyberg and Boast, 6 Leg. Ref. Svcs. Q. 5, Spring-Summer 1986.
Jury Misconduct, Jury Interviews, And The Federal Rules Of Evidence: Is The Broad Exclusionary Principle Of Rule 606(b) Justified?, 66 N.C. L. Rev. 509 (1988).
Jury Selection Procedures: Our Uncertain Commitment to Representative Panels, Van Dyke, Jon M., Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass. (1977).
The Legal Ramifications in Criminal Law of Knowingly Transmitting AIDS. L.A. David, 19 Law & Psychol. Rev. 259-71 Spring 1995.
Let the Record Show: Modifying Appellate Review Procedures For Errors of Prejudicial Nonverbal Communication By Trial Judges, R.L. Shoretz, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1273-300 June 1995.
The Mail Fraud Statute: An Argument For Repeal By Implication, Todd E. Molz, 64 U. Chi. L. Rev. 983 Summer 1997.
Mean Justice: A Town’s Terror, A Prosecution’s Power, and A Betrayal Of Innocence, Edward Humes, Simon & Schuster (1999), pp. 491.
“Megan’s Law”: Community Notification and the Constitution. S. Schopf, 29 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 117-46 Fall 1995.
The Movement for Better Jury Instructions: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography for Lawyers, J. Wilcox, 8 U. of Bridgeport L. Rev. 457, 1987.
Necessity of proving venue or territorial jurisdiction of criminal offense beyond reasonable doubt, 67 ALR3d 988.
Obscenity Test Requires Trier of Fact to Determine Whether Reasonable Person Would Find Material Lacks Serious Value and Erroneous Jury Instructions Concerning Obscenity Standard is Subject to Harmless Error Analysis [case note: Pope v. Illinois (1987) 107 S.Ct. 1918, Paulin, 18 Seton Hall L.Rev. 478, Spring 1988.
Of Gypsies, Juries And Judges: Constitutional Adjudication In Trial Courts, Erik Grant Luna. 26 Sw. U. L. Rev. 303, 1997.
Parent’s Criminal Liability for Acts of Minor Children: Current Status of California PC 272. D. Bernstein, 15 J. Juv. L. 79-93 1994.
Physiological Or Psychological Truth And Deception Tests, 23 A.L.R.2d 1306, supp sec. 2.
Pleas for DNA Testing: Why Lawmakers Should Amend State Post-conviction DNA Testing Statutes to Apply to Prisoners Who Pled Guilty, 25 Cardozo L. Rev. 1429 (2004).
The Potential Use of Courtroom Technology in Major Terrorism Cases, 12 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 887 (2004).
Pre-Deliberations Juror Misconduct, Evidential Incompetence, and Juror Responsibility, 98 Yale L.J. 187 (1988).
Prejudicial effect of prosecuting attorney’s argument or disclosure during trial that another defendant has been convicted or has pleaded guilty, 48 ALR2d 1016.
Presumed Dangerous: California’s Selective Policy of Forcibly Medicating State Prisoners With Antipsychotic Drugs, 35 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 483 (2002)
Profane or Obscene Language By Party, Witness, or Observer During Trial Proceedings as Basis For Contempt Citation, 29 ALR5th 702 (1996).
Propriety of reference, in instruction in criminal case, to juror’s duty to God, 39 ALR3d 1445.
“Protecting the Rights of Linguistic Minorities: Challenges to Court Interpretation,” Hon. Charles Grabau and Joseph G. Llewellyn, New England Law Review, vol. 30, no. 2, Winter 1996.
Puppy Love: Bioterrorism, Civil Rights, and Public Health, 55 Fla. L. Rev. 1171 (2003).
Putting A Burden of Production on the Defendant Before Admitting Evidence That Someone Else Committed the Crime Charged: Is It Constitutional? Stephen Michael Everhart, 76 Neb. L. Rev. 272, 1997
Ratzlaf v. United States (94) 114 SCt 655: The Meaning of “Willful” and the Demands of Due Process. R. Simonoff, 28 Colum. J. L. and Soc. Probs. 397-422 Spring 1995.
The React Security Belt: Stunning Prisoners And Human Rights Groups Into Questioning Whether Its Use Is Permissible Under The United States And Texas Constitutions, 30 St. Mary’s L. J. 239 (1998).
Recent Developments in Instructions, Green, Army Lawyer 46, April 1988.
Reconceptualizing Federal Habeas Corpus For State Prisoners: How Should AEDPA’s Standard of Review Operate After Williams V. Taylor?, 2001 Wis. L. Rev. 1493 (2001).
Right of Accused To Have Evidence or Court Proceedings Interpreted, Because Accused or Other Participant in Proceedings is Not Proficient in the Language Used. 32 ALR5th 149.
School Drug Tests: a Fourth Amendment Perspective, 1987 U. Ill. L. Rev. 275 (1987).
The Search For Instructional Error By The Appellate Advocate: A Suggested Approach, by Dallas Sacher [FORECITE Article Bank # A-85.]
Sixth Amendment–Trial Counsel And Conflict of Interest, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 242 (2002).
“Stipulations to Exclude Other Act Evidence: What Is Adequate?,” by Stephen A. Saltzburg, ABA Criminal Justice, Vol. 10, No. 1, (Spring 1995) pp. 39-42.
“Stipulations by the Defense to Remove Other Act Evidence,” by Stephen A. Saltzburg, ABA Criminal Justice, Vol. 9, No. 4, (Winter 1995) pp. 35-39.
“Stipulations, Part III, Convicted Felons on Trial,” by Stephen A. Saltzburg, ABA Criminal Justice, Vol. 10, No. 2, (Summer 1995) pp. 31-34.
Summing Up the Law [Great Britain], Griew, Crim.L.Rev. 768, Nov. 1989.
“They Say He’s Gay”: the Admissibility of Evidence of Sexual Orientation, 37 Ga. L. Rev. 793 (2003).
Thou Shalt Not Quote the Bible: Determining the Propriety of Attorney Use of Religious Philosophy and Themes in Oral Arguments (1998-1999), 33 Ga. L.Rev. 1113, 1176.
Trial Judiciary Note: Recent Developments in Instructions [U.S. Army Legal Services Agency report], Green, Army Lawyer 35, March 1987.
To Err is Human: The Judicial Conundrum of Curing Apprendi Error, 55 Baylor L. Rev. 889 (2003).
Strengthening the Criminal Jury: Long Overdue. H.S. Nathanson, 38 Crim. L.Q. 217-48 December 1995.
What’s Right With a Claim-of-Right, 33 U.S.F. L. Rev. 673 (1999).
Feature: Wrestling with Crawford v. Washington and the New Constitutional Law of Confrontation, 78 Fla. Bar J. 26 (2004).
Your Honor, May I Ask A Question? The Inherent Dangers of Allowing Jurors to Question Witnesses, Sylvester (1990).
Model Instructions (see Pattern/Model Instructions) (BIBLIO P)
Nullification (BIBLIO N)
Jury Nullification: Contours of the Controversy, Scheflin, Alan and Jon Van Dyke, Law and Contemporary Problems 43, 4, 51-115 (Autumn, 1980).
The Jury Nullification Debate. J. Johnson, 5 J. Legal Stud. 139-47 ’94-95.
Jury Nullification: Law Versus Anarchy, Lawrence W. Crispo, Jill M. Slansky and Geanene M. Yriarte, 31 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1, November, 1997.
Jury Nullification: The Inchoate Power, Dianah L. Pressley, 20 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 451, Winter 1996-1997.
Jury Nullification: The Right to Say No. Scheflin, Alan W., Southern California Law Review 45, 168-226 (1972).
Merciful Juries: The Resilience of Jury Nullification (Protest and Resistance: Civil Disobedience in the 1990’s), Scheflin and Van Dyke, 48 Wash. and Lee L.Rev. 165, Winter 1991.
A Proposal to Abolish Jury Instructions; It is Time to Stop Asking Juries to Interpret the Law (Calif.), Schneider, 15 Los Angeles L. Rev. 689, April 1992.
Scapegoating the Jury (jury nullification), Clay S. Conrad, 7 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1997.
Outrageous Prosecution Misconduct (BIBLIO O)
Mental Culpability and Prosecutorial Misconduct, 26 Am. J. Crim. L. 121 (1998).
What conduct of federal law enforcement authorities in inducing or co-operating in criminal offense raises due process defense distinct from entrapment, 97 ALR Fed. 273.
When is dismissal of indictment appropriate remedy for misconduct of government official, 57 ALR Fed. 824.
What You See Is What You Get: Applying The Appearance Of Impropriety Standard To Prosecutors, Flowers, 63 Missouri Law Review 699 (1998).
Pattern/Model Instructions (BIBLIO P)
Construction of statutes or rules making mandatory the use of pattern or uniform approved jury instructions, 49 ALR3d 128.
The Craft of Drafting Plain-Language Jury Instructions: A Study of Sample Pattern Instruction on Obscenity, Wilcox, 59 Temple L.Q. 1159, Winter 1986.
Federal Criminal Jury Instructions, Saltzburg and Perlman, Michie Co., 1990.
Federal Jury Practice, Criminal and Instructions, 3d ed., Devitt and Blackmar, West Publishing, 1977.
Instructing the Jury — Pattern Instructions, 6 Am Jur Trials 923.
Limitations of Form Instructions, Comment, 36 So. Cal. L. Rev. 97, 1962.
Michigan Standard Criminal Jury Instructions: Judges’ Perspectives After Ten Year’s Use, Koenig, Kerr and Van Hoek, 4 Cooley L.Rev. 347, May 1987.
Model Jury Instructions for the Actual Malice Standard, Spar, 39 S. Carolina L.Rev. 79, Autumn 1986.
The Model Utah Jury Instruction Project, Young, 4 Utah B.J. 14, Dec. 1991.
Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Criminal, Sand, Siffert, Loughlin and Reiss, Matthew Bender, 1984.
A Pattern Jury Instruction for Felony Murder [Pennsylvania], Murphy, 94 Dickinson L.Rev. 489, Winter 1990.
Pattern Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases [Canada], Bouck, 48 The Advocate 209, Mar. 1990.
Pinpoint Instructions (BIBLIO PI)
A New Challenge to Prosecution Pinpoint Instructions, Powell, CACJ Forum, Vol. 17, No. 4, 13-20, July-Aug 1990.
Public Trial (BIBLIO PT)
Federal constitutional right to public trial in criminal case–federal cases, 61 L. Ed. 2d 1018.
Giving, in accused’s absence, additional instruction to jury after submission of felony case, 94 ALR2d 270.
Special Verdicts (BIBLIO SV)
Beyond “Guilty” or “Not Guilty”: Giving Special Verdicts in Criminal Jury Trials, 21 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 263 (2003).
Cardinal Newman and Jury Verdicts: Reason, Belief, and Certitude. C. Moran, 8(1) Yale L.J. 63, 1996.
Jury Agreement and the General Verdict in Criminal Cases, Comment, 19 Land and Water L. Rev. 207, 1984.
Removing the Blindfold: General Verdicts and Letting the Jury Know the Effects of its Answers [appendix contains survey of Texas law], Miller, 29 S. Texas L.Rev. 233, Oct. 1987.
Sua Sponte Instructions (BIBLIO SS)
California Mandatory Criminal Jury Instruction Handbook, Judicial Council of California, (CJER) (2007).
Duty of trial court to instruct on self-defense in absence of request by accused, 56 ALR2d 1170.
Summing Up — Need to Direct Jury on Matters Properly Issues in Trial Even if not Raised by Defence Which May Omit Them for Tactical Reasons — Corroboration [Great Britain], Cowan and Smith, Crim. L.Rev. 434, June 1992.
Sympathy (BIBLIO S)
Sympathy to accused as appropriate factor in jury consideration, 72 ALR3d 842.
When to Instruct (BIBLIO W)
The Feasibility and Utility of Pretrial Instruction in the Substantive Law: A Survey of Judges, Smith, 14 Law and Human Behavior 235, June 1990.
The Place of Primacy in Persuading Jurors: Timing of Judges’ Instructions and Impact of Opening Statements (Symposium: Making Jury Instructions Comprehensible), Wrightsman, 8 U. of Bridgeport L.Rev. 431, Summer 1987.
Digests, General (BIBLIO DG)
Cal Jur 3d: 18 Cal Jur 3d, Criminal Law §§ 872-903.
Instructing the Jury — Pattern Instructions, 6 Am Jur Trials 923.
Making and Preserving the Record — Objections, 6 Am Jur Trials 605.
Digests of Proposed Instructions (BIBLIO DI)
Ackley, Criminal Defense Instructions, Knowles Publishing, Inc., 1989.
Branson, The Law of Instructions to Juries in Civil and Criminal Cases: Rules and a Complete Collection of Approved and Annotated Forms [United States], 4th Ed., West Publishing, 1977 to current.
Devitt, Blackmar Wolf and O’Malley, Federal Jury Practice, Criminal and Instructions (3d Ed.), West Publishing, 1992.
Jury Instructions for Civil and Criminal RICO Cases with Commentary, 1987 Brigham Young U.L.Rev. 1-150, Winter 1987.
Model Jury Instructions for the Actual Malice Standard, Spar, 39 S. Carolina L.Rev. 79, Autumn 1986.
Rucker & Overland, California Criminal Forms & Instructions, Vol. 3 § 37:1-37.33, Bancroft and Whitney, 1983.
Saltzburg and Perlman, Federal Criminal Jury Instructions, Michie Co., 1990.
Sand, Siffert, Loughlin and Reiss, Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Criminal, Matthew Bender, 1984.
General Texts (BIBLIO G)
Fischer and Lynn, Appeals & Writs in California Cases, §§ 195-196, 2.15, CEB, 1982.
LaFave and Israel, Criminal Procedure, Vol. 3 § 23.6(b), West Publishing, 1984.
Riordan, Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases: How to Use Them Effectively, Program Materials, California Continuing Education of the Bar, May/June 1983.
Riordan and Gillette, California Criminal Law and Procedure, § 32, CEB, 1986.
Wharton’s Criminal Procedure, (12th Ed.) Vol. 4 § 535, Torcia, 1974.
Witkin and Epstein, 5 California Criminal Law, 2nd Ed. Trial, Vol. 5 §§ 2921-2954, Bancroft Whitney, 1989.
