Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

Return to Practice Guide Table of Contents

PG IX(G)  Jury’s Request For Read-Back of Arguments of Counsel.

In People v. Gordon (90) 50 C3d 1223, 1260, the court held that a jury request for read-back of the arguments of counsel may be rejected by the court in the exercise of its discretion if the court determines that the readback would divert the jury’s “focus from the evidence introduced and the instructions given.”

If the jury makes such a request which counsel wishes to have granted it could be argued that the readback is necessary because of the relationship between the argument and the jury’s understanding of the instructions.  It is an established practice of the reviewing courts to look to the arguments of counsel in evaluating whether or not the jury understood the instructions.  (See, e.g., People v. Brown (88) 45 C3d 1247, 1256-57 [248 CR 817]; see also, FORECITE F 102 Inst 3 regarding instruction of the jurors about their ability to seek readback and reinstruction, etc.)  This practice of relying upon the arguments to cure instructional errors – which is of questionable propriety under any circumstances (see FORECITE PG X(G) – is particularly inappropriate when the jury’s request for a readback of the arguments was denied.

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES