How have the courts interpreted the prosecutor's statement that the jury's verdict must be based on the evidence presented in court?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Pena, G053303 (Cal. App. 2017):

The prosecutor's statement that the jury's verdict must be based "on the evidence presented in court" mirrors the jury instructions given in this case. CALCRIM No. 200 informed the jury as follows: "You must decide what the facts are. It is up to all of you, and you alone to decide what happened, based only on the evidence that has been presented to you in this trial." (Italics added.) Moreover, in her opening statement, the prosecutor began her argument by correctly stating the law: "What I have to prove. What I have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt is not everything that happened. Not every fact or detail, but prove the elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt." (See CALJIC No. 2.90; People v. Hearon (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1286.) When the entire argument is viewed in context, the statements are not ambiguous. The prosecutor correctly informed the jury to consider the evidence presented and not to speculate or base its decision on "attorney argument."

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.

Other Questions

How have courts interpreted comments made by a prosecutor in a civil case where the prosecutor suggested that the prosecutor's theories were not the exclusive theories that may be considered by the court? (California, United States of America)

When a prosecutor manipulates the array of evidence before the grand jury, does the prosecutor have a duty to inform the jury of exculpatory evidence of which he or she is aware of? (California, United States of America)

When a defendant's out-of-court statement is admitted to a jury, does the court have to instruct the jury that this evidence must be viewed with caution? (California, United States of America)

In a motion to appeal against a jury's finding that there was no substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict, does the appellate court have any power to substitute the findings of the jury? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances will a prospective jury at a jury trial be able to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial? (California, United States of America)

Can a jury construe a prosecutor's statements as statements based on information or evidence outside the trial record? (California, United States of America)

When one of the theories presented to the jury is factually inadequate, such as the factually incomplete, does the court have to be able to affirm a jury verdict based solely on the unsupported theory? (California, United States of America)

Can a jury interpret or apply a statement by a prosecutor during closing argument as evidence? (California, United States of America)

Does a trial court's statement that it does not believe the jury is hopelessly deadlocked give the jury the impression the jury should convict defendant? (California, United States of America)

How have courts dealt with the situation where the verdict form signed by the jury is different in some respect from the verdict as declared and acknowledged in open court? (California, United States of America)

How have the courts interpreted the prosecutor's statement that the jury's verdict must be based on the evidence presented in court?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources