Tag Archives: CC 220

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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Scales of Justice Metaphor Does Not Accurately Describe Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Which Requires That Proof That Goes “Substantially” Beyond a State of “Equipoise”
July 28th, 2019

In People v. Daveggio and Michaud (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 790, 838-44 the judge addressed several groups of prospective jurors who had yet to complete juror questionnaires. In each session the judge discussed the presumption of innocence and requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in concepts such as the following: The most important concept […]

Tags: , , ,

Should Burden of Proof Be Illustrated by Examples Based on the Level of Certainty Needed to Make Decisions “In The Ordinary Affairs of Life?”
July 16th, 2019

In People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal. 5th 1012, 1039-41 the court’s introductory comments to the jury panels illustrated the concept of circumstantial evidence as follows: Let’s assume that you or your spouse prepared … a raspberry pie and you set that on the counter to cool. There’s nobody home except      you and your […]

Tags: , ,

Was the Maiden Voyage of the Titanic Merely “Incomplete”?
July 29th, 2016

In People v. Cortez (2016) 63 C4th 101 the prosecutor effectively told the jury that a non-imaginary belief is proof beyond a reasonable doubt: “The court told you that beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond all doubt or imaginary doubt. Basically, I submit to you what it means is you look at the […]

Tags: , , , ,

Improper to Instruct That an “Abiding Conviction” Means A Verdict “You Will Be Comfortable with … a Year from Now”
July 21st, 2016

In People v. Muniz [UNPUBLISHED] (2011) 198 CA4th 1324, at the beginning of voir dire, the judge instructed the jurors that in “plain English” an “abiding conviction” means “when you come to a verdict you will be comfortable with it the day you do it, two months or a year from now.” The majority opinion […]

Tags: , , , ,

Improper to Describe Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt in Terms of “Every Day” Decisions
July 20th, 2016

In People v. Nguyen (1995) 40 CA4th 28, 35-37, the prosecutor told the jury that people apply the reasonable doubt standard “every day” and it is the same standard people customarily use in deciding whether to change lanes when driving or whether to get married. The court of appeal held that this argument trivialized the […]

Tags: , , , ,

Defense Has No Burden to Prove Any Specific Facts
July 13th, 2016

CC 100, paragraph 3, sentence 4, provides as follows: “Because (he/she/they) (is/are) presumed innocent, the defendant[s] (does/do) not have to prove that (he/she/they) (is/are) not guilty.” CC 100 is technically correct as far as it goes. (See People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 CA4th 1174, 1179.) However, it only discusses the presumption of innocence in the […]

Tags: , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , ,