Tag Archives: Cautionary and Limiting Instructions


Reversible Error to Allow In-Custody Testimony of Co-Defendant Which Was Not A “Declaration Against Penal Interest”
March 14th, 2023

In People v. Gallardo (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 51 the judge committed reversible error by admitting extrajudicial    statements of a non-testifying third codefendant regarding the role of the other two defendants in the crime.   After the declarant codefendant was arrested, the prosecution planted two informants in his cell for the purpose of eliciting information […]


Tags: , , ,


Reversible Error to Allow In-Custody Testimony of Co-Defendant Which Was Not A “Declaration Against Penal Interest”
March 4th, 2023

In People v. Gallardo (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 51 the judge committed reversible error by admitting extrajudicial  statements of a non-testifying third codefendant regarding the role of the other two defendants in the crime.   After the declarant codefendant was arrested, the prosecution planted two informants in his cell for the purpose of eliciting information from […]


Tags: , , ,


Reversible Error to Allow In-Custody Testimony of Co-Defendant Which Was Not A “Declaration Against Penal Interest”
January 13th, 2023

In People v. Gallardo (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 51 the judge committed reversible error by admitting extrajudicial statements of a non-testifying third codefendant regarding the role of the other two defendants in the crime.   After the declarant codefendant was arrested, the prosecution planted two informants in his cell for the purpose of eliciting information from […]


Tags: , , ,


Limiting Ability of Penalty Phase Jurors to Consider Consciousness of Guilt As Non-Statutory Aggravation
October 3rd, 2022

When consciousness of guilt evidence is admitted at the guilt trial of a death penalty trial that evidence may include “ ‘aggravating evidence of a type not statutorily authorized.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Anderson (2018) 5 Cal.5th 372, 393.) For example, consciousness of guilt may be interpreted by the jurors “as evidence of bad character, and […]


Tags: , , , , ,


Limitations on Selection of an Anonymous Jury and Access to Juror Names
September 24th, 2021

People v. Lopez (June 14, 2021, B305783) 65 Cal.App.5th 484 affirmed the rule allowing the selection of an anonymous jury but recognized important limitations on such a practice. First, while Code of Civil Procedure § 237 requires juror identifying information to be sealed after the jury returns its verdict, § 237 “does not authorize sealing of […]


Tags: , , ,


Limitations on Selection of an Anonymous Jury and Access to Juror Names
September 14th, 2021

People v. Lopez (June 14, 2021, B305783) 65 Cal.App.5th 484 affirmed the rule allowing the selection of an anonymous jury but recognized important limitations on such a practice. First, while Code of Civil Procedure § 237 requires juror identifying information to be sealed after the jury returns its verdict, § 237 “does not authorize sealing of […]


Tags: , , ,


Juror Anonymity: Jury Must Be Assured That Reasons for Anonymity Are NOT Related to Security
August 12th, 2021

The empanelment of an anonymous jury is allowed only where (1) there are strong grounds for concluding that it is necessary to ensure juror protection and (2) reasonable safeguards are adopted by the trial court to minimize any risk of infringement upon the fundamental rights of the accused. (People v. Thomas  (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, […]


Tags: , , ,


CC 373 Improperly Implies That The Dog’s Identification Of The Defendant Or Location Is A “Fact”
August 30th, 2019

CC 373 instructs as follows: You have received evidence about the use of a tracking dog. You may not conclude that the defendant is the person who committed the crime based only on the fact that a dog indicated the defendant [or a location]. Before you may rely on dog tracking evidence, there must be: […]


Tags: , ,


CALJIC 2.16 Properly Instructs Jury on Dog Scent Evidence; Instruction Is Not Required Sua Sponte
July 30th, 2019

In People v. Westerfield (2019) 6 Cal. 5th 632 evidence that a cadaver dog had “alerted” to a scent in defendant’s motorhome was admitted before the jury.  The jury was instructed pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.16 that dog tracking evidence is not sufficient by itself to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of […]


Tags: , ,


Should Defendant’s Statements Which Show Guilt of Lesser Offense Be Viewed with Caution?
June 7th, 2019

In People v. Powell (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 136; 169 the defendant contended that the cautionary instruction regarding the defendant’s out of court oral admissions (CJ 2.71.7) “pertains only to statements harmful to the defense.” The CSC apparently agreed that the instruction does not apply to exculpatory statements: “[T]his instruction properly applies to ‘any extrajudicial […]


Tags: , , , ,