California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ramirez, 55 Cal.App.4th 47, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 9 (Cal. App. 1997):
In any event, a review of the instructions actually given undermines appellant's speculative contention. "It is well established that the [challenged] instruction 'may not be judged in artificial isolation,' but must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record." (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 482, 116 L.Ed.2d 385.) Here, the jury was instructed that it "must determine the facts from the evidence received in the trial and not from any other source." Jurors were told that they were "the sole judges of the believability of a witness" and were given factors to consider in resolving credibility. None of these factors concerned a witness testifying under a fictitious name. Finally, the trial court specifically instructed the jury as follows:
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.