Is it improper to make arguments to the jury that give the impression that emotion may reign over reason?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Nelson, E061050 (Cal. App. 2015):
"'It is, of course, improper to make arguments to the jury that give it the impression that "emotion may reign over reason," and to present "irrelevant information or inflammatory rhetoric that diverts the jury's attention from its proper role, or invites an irrational, purely subjective response." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1210.)
"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
Is it improper for a prosecutor to make arguments to the jury that give the impression that emotion may reign over reason? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a reasonable probability of a more favourable result under the reasonable beyond reasonable doubt standard? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
If a prosecutor has made a number of improper statements in their closing argument, would the defense counsel have been within the bounds of reasonable competence to respond with an objection? (California, United States of America)
Is there compelling legal argument to support the argument that the definition of reasonable doubt is unconstitutional? (California, United States of America)
Is there a reasonable likelihood that a prosecutor's comment at the closing argument was directed solely at the persuasive force of defense counsel's closing argument? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
Can a prosecutor who described the defense case as "ludicrous," "contrived" and "bogus" in his arguments to the jury use improper or improper language? (California, United States of America)
When a prosecutor makes an argument that the prosecutor was aware of the facts to the jury in a death penalty case, is it improper or improper? (California, United States of America)
Can a juror refuse to amend "Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance" from "Extreme, extreme, extreme mental or emotional disturbance" to "Aggravation"? (California, United States of America)
