California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Legaspi, F065549 (Cal. App. 2020):
"[W]hile we do presume the jury has endeavored to follow the court's instructions [citation], we cannot always assume that those instructions are sufficient to dispel the taint of prejudicial information. A limiting instruction warning jurors they should not think about the elephant in the room is not the same thing as having no elephant in the room." (People v. Fritz (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 949, 962.) Assuming the jury succeeded in compartmentalizing the hearsay and refrained from concluding defendant was predisposed to criminal behavior, it would have been difficult to ignore the inference of modus operandi.4
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.