SERIES 200 POST-TRIAL: INTRODUCTORY
F 220 NOTES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 220 Note 1 Prosecution’s Burden Should Be Included In Pretrial Instructions On Jurors Duties
F 220 Note 2 Whether “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Should Be Defined
F 220 Note 3 Alternative Definition Of Reasonable Doubt
F 220 Note 4 Improper To Describe Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt In Terms Of “Every Day” Decisions
F 220 Note 5 Error To Instruct Jury That Defendant Is Presumed Not Guilty
F 220 Note 6 Counsel Has Duty To Challenge CALCRIM 103 Notwithstanding View Of Intermediate California Appellate Court That The Issue Is Frivolous
F 220 Note 7 Pretrial Instructions During Voir Dire: Impact On Jury Instruction Errors At Trial
F 220 Note 8 Equal Protection Challenge To CALCRIM 103 Based On Bush v. Gore (2000) 531 US 98 [148 LEd2d 388; 121 SCt 525]
F 220 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 220 Note 10 CALJIC 2.90 Unconstitutionally Admonishes the Jury That a Possible Doubt Is Not a Reasonable Doubt
F 220 Note 11 Precluding Prosecutor From Unduly Emphasizing Instructional Language Regarding “Mere Possible Or Imaginary Doubt”
F 220 Note 12 Other Jurisdictions Instruct The Jurors On The Prosecution’s Burden To Prove “Every Element” Or “Each Element”
Return to Series 200 Table of Contents.
F 220 Note 1 Prosecution’s Burden Should Be Included In Pretrial Instructions On Jurors Duties
See FORECITE F 103 Note 1.
F 220 Note 2 Whether “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Should Be Defined
See FORECITE F 103 Note 2.
F 220 Note 3 Alternative Definition Of Reasonable Doubt
See FORECITE F 103 Note 2.
F 220 Note 4 Improper To Describe Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt In Terms Of “Every Day” Decisions
See FORECITE F 103 Note 4.
F 220 Note 5 Error To Instruct Jury That Defendant Is Presumed Not Guilty
See FORECITE F 103 Note 5.
F 220 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 220 Note 7 Pretrial Instructions During Voir Dire: Impact On Jury Instruction Errors At Trial
See FORECITE F 103 Note 7.
F 220 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 220 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 220 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 220 Note 11 Precluding Prosecutor From Unduly Emphasizing Instructional Language Regarding “Mere Possible Or Imaginary Doubt”
See FORECITE F 103 Note 11.
F 220 Note 12 Other Jurisdictions Instruct The Jurors On The Prosecution’s Burden To Prove “Every Element” Or “Each Element”
A. State Jurisdictions
In a random partial survey of state jurisdictions only 2 out of 23 (Alabama and Montana) did not use the “each element” or “every element” formulation when defining the presumption of innocence.
Alaska: “every essential element” (ALASKA PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS, 1.06 (Alaska Bar Association, 1987).)
Colorado: “each and every element” (State of Colorado Unofficial Draft for Review and Comment (September 2003).)
Connecticut: “the essential elements” (CONNECTICUT SELECTED JURY INSTRUCTIONS – CRIMINAL A. PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS TO VOIR DIRE PANEL, ‘ 1.6 BURDEN OF PROOF (The Commission on Official Legal Publications – Judicial Branch, 3rd ed. 1996).)
Florida: “[The presumption of innocence] stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.”] (Florida Standard Jury Instructions Online 3.7 [Plea Of Not Guilty; Reasonable Doubt; And Burden Of Proof]; see also FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES 2.03. [Plea Of Not Guilty; Reasonable Doubt; And Burden Of Proof] (Florida Bar, 1987).)
Hawaii: “every material element” (HAWAII PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS – CRIMINAL, HAWJIC 3.02 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE; REASONABLE DOUBT(West, 1998).)
Kansas: “doubt as to any of the claims required to be proved”(PATTERN INSTRUCTIONS FOR KANSAS – CRIMINAL, PIK – Criminal 3d, 52.02 para 2 (Kansas Judicial Council, 3rd ed. 1999).)
Kentucky: “every element of the case”(Cooper, KENTUCKY INSTRUCTIONS TO JURIES, 1.01 para 1 (Anderson, 4th ed. 1999).)
Louisiana: “each element of the crime” (Joseph & LaMonica, LOUISIANA CIVIL LAW TREATISE CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS, 3.02, para 1 (West, 1994).)
Maryland: “each of the elements”(Aaronson, MARYLAND CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND COMMENTARY, 1.02 para 1 (Lexis, 2nd ed. 1988).)
Massachusetts: “each element of each charge” (Hrones & Homans, MASSACHUSETTS JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CRIMINAL Form 1-1. Presumption of Innocence (Lexis, 2nd ed. 1999).)
Maine: “each and every element”(Alexander, MAINE JURY INSTRUCTIONS MANUAL, 3rd ed. 4-2 para 2 (Lexis, 1999).)
Michigan: “each element” (MICHIGAN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (ICLE, 2nd ed. 1999).)
Minnesota: “each element” (MINNESOTA JURY INSTRUCTION GUIDES—CRIMINAL, CRIMJIG 3.20 (West, 4th ed. 1999).)
New Jersey: “each and every essential element” (NEW JERSEY MODEL JURY CHARGES—CRIMINAL, PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, REASONABLE DOUBT (New Jersey ICLE 4th ed. 1997).)
New York: “every element” (CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS—NEW YORK, CJI (NY) 2d PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, REASONABLE DOUBT (New York Office of Court Administration 1996).)
Oklahoma: “each element” (OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CRIMINAL, OUJI—CR 10-4 GENERAL CLOSING CHARGE – PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (Oklahoma Center for Criminal Justice, 2nd ed. 1996 (2000 Supp.).)
Pennsylvania: “each and every element of the crime charged” (PENNSYLVANIA SUGGESTED STANDARD CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS, Pa.SSJI (Crim) 7.01 (Pennsylvania Bar Institute, PBI Press, 2000)
South Carolina: “each and every essential element” (Ervin’s, SOUTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS 1-14, [Reasonable Doubt Charge] ¶ 1. (South Carolina Bar, 1995).)
Tennessee: “all of the elements” (TENNESSEE PATTERN INSTRUCTIONS – CRIMINAL, 2.04 BURDEN OF PROOF: ELEMENTS AND DATE OF THE OFFENSE, T.P.I.-Crim (West, 5th ed. 2000).)
Texas: “each and every element of the offense” (McClung, & Carpenter, TEXAS CRIMINAL JURY CHARGES 1:350 [General Instruction-Reasonable Doubt, Presumption Of Innocence] (James Publishing, 2000).)
Washington: “each element of every crime charged’ (WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CRIMINAL, WPIC 31.01 (West, 2nd ed. 1994).)
B. Federal Circuit, Military, District Of Columbia
A random survey of eight federal circuit (1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th), the four Military Justice Courts and the District of Columbia revealed that only three out of the thirteen jurisdictions (5th, 10th and 11th* Circuits) did not use the “each element” or “every element” formulation.
*The 11th Circuit used the “each element” formulation in its alibi instruction but not in the general burden of proof instruction.
1st Circuit: “each of the elements of the crime[s]” (1ST CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CRIMINAL, 3.02 Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2002).)
1st Circuit: “each essential element of the offense” ((1ST CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CRIMINAL, 6.06 Charge to a Hung Jury (2002).)
6th Circuit: “every element of the crime charged” (6TH CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CRIMINAL, 1.03 Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof, Reasonable Doubt (1991).)
7th Circuit: “each of these propositions” (7TH CIRCUIT FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CRIMINAL 4.01 Elements of Offense–Single Offense Cases (1999).)
8th Circuit: “each essential element” (8TH CIRCUIT MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS – CRIMINAL, 3.05 Description of Charge; Indictment Not Evidence; Presumption of Innocence; Burden of Proof(2000).)
8th Circuit: “all of [these] [the] essential elements” (8TH CIRCUIT MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CRIMINAL 3.09 Elements of Offense; Burden of Proof (2000).)
9th Circuit: “every element of the charge” (9TH CIRCUIT MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CRIMINAL 3.2 Charge Against Defendant Not Evidence–Presumption of Innocence–Burden of Proof (2000).)
11th Circuit: “each of the essential elements of the offense” (11TH CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS—CRIMINAL, SI 14 Alibi (2003), but see BI 3 Definition Of Reasonable Doubt.)
District of Columbia: “every element” (CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 2.08 para 2 (Bar Association of the District of Columbia, 4th ed. 1993).)
Military: “every element” (MILITARY JUDGE’S BENCHBOOK—2001, 2-5-12 [used by all four military jurisdictions].)
C. Miscellaneous
Federal Pattern/Model Instructions: “each and every element of the offense charged” (O’Malley Grenig, & Lee, FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE AND INSTRUCTIONS, 12.10 para 4 (West, 5th ed. 2000).)
