Deficiencies in Defense Evidence Cannot Make up for Shortcomings in Prosecution’s Evidence
August 13th, 2020
[Update of February 3rd, 2015 post] People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal. 4th 659 provides an important clarification of the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proof: “…[D]eficiencies in the defense case [cannot] make up for shortcomings in [the prosecution’s case].” (Id., at 673.) For example, in People v. Brito (Sep. 19, 2019, […]
Tags: Appeal, Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, Burden Of Proof, CC 100, CC 101, CC 220, Defense Theory Instructions, Lesser Included Offenses, Misstatement Of Law, Presumption of Innocence, Prosecutor Misconduct, Sample Instructions, Standard of Prejudice
Proper to Tell Jury to Use Magnifying Glass to Examine Exhibit Photos
April 21st, 2020
Jury conduct that amounts to critical examination of the evidence admitted, as opposed to conduct resulting in the acquisition of new evidence, is not juror misconduct. Improper experiments by the jury are those that allow the jury to discover new evidence by considering areas not examined during trial. Conduct that is simply a more critical […]
Tags: CC 101, CC 332, Expert Testimony, Jury Misconduct
Judge Has Sua Sponte duty to Give Cautionary Instruction re: Jury Conduct But Standard of Prejudice Not Resolved
July 19th, 2016
In People v. Carter (2010) 182 CA4th 522, 531-534 the reviewing court held that the failure to give CC 101 sua sponte was error. However, the parties disagreed on whether the harmless error analysis should be governed by People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [not reasonably probable a more favorable result would have […]
Tags: Appeal, Cautionary and Limiting Instructions, CC 101, Judge Duty to Instruct, Standard of Prejudice, Sua Sponte
Juror Misconduct: Critical Examination of Evidence vs. Acquisition of New Evidence
July 18th, 2016
Jury conduct that amounts to critical examination of the evidence admitted, as opposed to conduct resulting in the acquisition of new evidence, is not juror misconduct. Improper experiments by the jury are those that allow the jury to discover new evidence by considering areas not examined during trial. Conduct that is simply a more critical […]
Tags: CC 101, CC 332, Expert Testimony, Jury Misconduct
Evidence Limited to Courtroom: Sua Sponte Duty to Admonish
April 10th, 2015
The court has a sua sponte duty to give CC 101, limiting jurors to considering evidence that is presented in the courtroom. (See People v. Carter (2010)182 Cal. App. 4th 522.) It is critical that jurors be instructed that they cannot conduct any independent research on a case and should not discuss the […]
Tags: Cautionary and Limiting Instructions, CC 101, Judge Duty to Instruct, Jury Misconduct, Sua Sponte
Use of Diagram or Visual Aid to Explain Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
February 13th, 2015
In People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal. 4th 659, 662 the prosecutor used a diagram showing the boundaries of California and urged the jury to convict based on a “reasonable” view of the evidence. In addressing this issue the CSC discussed several related cases: The case law is replete with innovative but ill-fated attempts […]
Tags: Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, Burden Of Proof, CC 100, CC 101, CC 220, Charts and Diagrams, Defense Theory Instructions, Misstatement Of Law, Presumption of Innocence, Prosecutor Misconduct
Revision of CC Instruction re: Independent Research
May 30th, 2014
The February, 2012, revision of CC 101 modified the section in the second to last paragraph emphasizing to the jury that “it may not use any form of research or communication. . ..” The February, 2012, revision also added in brackets the section in the second to last paragraph telling jurors that if they […]
Tags: CC 101, Jury Misconduct
