Is a defendant required to prove a jury could have found a jury would have found him to have been successful on a disputed point?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gagnon, C082290 (Cal. App. 2018):
Thus, the law imposes a substantively greater burden than defendant is willing to assume by claiming that he need only show a jury "could have" or "may have" found in his favor on the disputed point. (See also People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837
Page 16
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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
What would be required to prove if a defendant were to plead the bar of the applicable statute of limitation as an affirmative defense? (California, United States of America)
Does Defendant have a valid claim to be able to claim damages from a defendant who has been found guilty of a similar claim against the Defendant? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law in which a defendant is successful in his claim that the Defendant failed to properly evaluate the Defendant's evidence? (California, United States of America)
Can a jury be found to have found an omitted element in a jury instruction where the jury could not have rationally found the omitted element unproven? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant required to prove he would not have entered a plea if he had known the lifetime parole term was included in the plea? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does Defendant have a claim that the prosecution reduced the burden of proving a defendant's guilt by failing to instruct the jury that refusal was insufficient to establish guilt? (California, United States of America)
Does Defendant have a claim that the trial court should have instructed the jury that it could impose the death penalty only if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that death is appropriate? (California, United States of America)
Does a failure of instruction to require a jury to produce written findings by the jury regarding the aggravating factors found and considered in returning a death sentence violate a defendant's constitutional right to meaningful appellate review? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for requiring a defendant to prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
