Questioning of Witness by Judge: Cautionary Instruction
January 20th, 2022
RATIONALE: When the judge asks questions of a witness, there is a danger that the jury will place undue emphasis or importance on the question or to the answer elicited, or consider that the question indicates the judge’s view of the evidence. Therefore, a cautionary instruction admonishing the jury not to attach special weight to […]
Tags: CC 101, Judge Comment on the Evidence, Judicial Misconduct, Sample Instructions
Questions to Witness by Judge: Cautionary Instruction
December 15th, 2021
RATIONALE: When the judge asks questions of a witness, there is a danger that the jury will place undue emphasis or importance on the question or to the answer elicited, or consider that the question indicates the judge’s view of the evidence. Therefore, a cautionary instruction admonishing the jury not to attach special weight to […]
Tags: CC 101, Judge Comment on the Evidence, Judicial Misconduct
Judicial Misconduct May Require Reversal Error
November 3rd, 2021
CC 101 admonishes the jurors as follows: Do not take anything I say or do during the trial as an indication of what I think about the facts, the witnesses, or what your verdict should be. However, such admonitions are not always sufficient to cure judicial misconduct. For example, in People v. Nieves (May […]
Tags: CC 101, Judge Comment on the Evidence, Judicial Misconduct
Sample Instructions: Use Of The Term “Expert“ In Jury Instruction As Improper Comment On The Evidence
April 6th, 2017
In this prior post it was suggested that the term “expert” should not be used when referring to witnesses in the jury instructions. Below is a non-exhaustive list of sample instructions which eliminate the term “expert” from the instructions: F 332 Inst 7 (a-d) Deletion Of The Term “Expert” From Expert Witness Instruction *Modify CC […]
Tags: CC 332, CC 361, Judge Comment on the Evidence, Sample Instructions
Use Of The Term “Expert“ In Jury Instruction As Improper Comment On The Evidence
April 6th, 2017
As recently recognized by the United States Supreme Court, the effect of testimony on a jury can be “heightened due to the source of the testimony.” (Buck v. Davis (2/22/2017) ___US___[187 Led 2d 35].) For example, when testimony in a death penalty trial regarding the defendant’s future dangerousness comes from a “medical expert bearing the […]
Tags: CC 332, CC 361, Death Penalty, Judge Comment on the Evidence
