How have the courts treated the jury in a jury trial?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Lamonte, E062102 (Cal. App. 2017):

Throughout the trial, the court went to great lengths to be fair to defendant and ensure he received a fair trial. At least twice, the court instructed the jury not to "take anything" the court said or did "as any indication of what I think about the facts, the witnesses, or what your verdict should be." The court also told the jury: "I've been a lot more interactive in this trial than usual, and I just want to make sure you understand that I'm trying to make sure both sides get a fair trial and the procedures are followed and evidence is trustworthy and reliable that you receive." Absent a showing to the contrary, we presume the jury followed the court's instructions. (People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 130.) There is no indication that the jury did not follow these instructions, or understand its duty to fairly and impartially decide the case.

Page 40

Other Questions


When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
How has the court treated the jury in a trial where the trial court advised the jury to continue deliberating on a motion? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial need to be denied because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
How does the Court treat a claim by a defendant that an issue raised and decided in the trial court resulted in constitutional violations? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
How has the trial court treated the waiver of a defendant's right to stand trial by jury? (California, United States of America)
How have courts treated a defendant's claim that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on the elements of rape and sodomy generally? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts treated a defendant's claim that counsel failed to object to the trial court's incorrect belief that he had expressed no remorse at his initial sentencing hearing? (California, United States of America)
In a motion for a new trial, is the trial court bound by the same principles as the court of appeal? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.