Tag Archives: CC 332


Is There a Disconnect Between the CALCRIM Expert Witness Instructions (CC 332 and CC 360) and People V. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665
June 22nd, 2018

In its March 2018 revision of CC 360 CALCRIM added a citation to Sanchez but failed to explain the crucial changes that case made to the law regarding an expert’s reliance on hearsay. Nor did Calcrim suggest any revisions to the instructional language in light of Sanchez. Furthermore, as to CC 332 [Expert Witness Testimony] […]


Tags: , , ,


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: , , ,


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: , , ,


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: , , ,