DOCSLIB.ORG

Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Ninth Circuit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Ninth Circuit MANUAL OF MODEL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT Prepared by the Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions Committee _________ 2010 Edition Last updated 12/2019 NINTH CIRCUIT JURY INSTRUCTIONS COMMITTEE ____________ Members: District Judge Michael H. Simon, Chair District Judge André Birotte, Jr. Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney District Judge Sharon L. Gleason District Judge Andrew J. Guilford Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch District Judge Rosemary Márquez Circuit Judge John B. Owens Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson Staff: Nicholas Jackson Reporter: Debra Landis ii INTRODUCTION TO 2010 EDITION This Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions (“Manual”) has been prepared to help judges communicate more effectively with juries. The instructions in this Manual are models. They are not mandatory, and must be reviewed carefully before use in a particular case. They are not a substitute for the individual research and drafting that may be required in a particular case, nor are they intended to discourage judges from using their own forms and techniques for instructing juries. In addition to its ongoing consideration of legislative developments and appellate court decisions that may impact these model instructions, the Jury Instructions Committee (the Committee) welcomes suggestions from judges, staff and practitioners about possible revisions, additions and deletions. After careful assessment and research, the Committee updates and revises instructions from time to time as necessary. Revisions are available online. They are later compiled and published in the printed version of the Manual. The Committee strongly recommends that the online version of any instruction be consulted to be sure an up to date instruction is being considered. The Committee encourages users of this book to make suggestions for further revisions and updates. This 2010 edition incorporates new and modified instructions. However, the print publication of the Manual necessarily presents a snap-shot of an ongoing research and drafting process. Accordingly, even the most recently dated edition of the Manual does not guarantee that one is using instructions that are up to date. The entire publication and any later changes can be found at the Ninth Circuit’s website at this link: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/crim. This 2010 edition is current as to instructions approved as of July 2010. To assist users, the Committee has included a table listing the old instruction numbers in the 2003 edition and the corresponding numbers in the 2010 edition. These model instructions have been reviewed by various members of the federal bench and bar. The Committee extends its thanks to those who reviewed and commented on various parts of the book. The Committee also extends its thanks to former Committee members, Chief District Judge Roger L. Hunt and Judge Stephen G. Larson, for their contributions to this edition and to Ninth Circuit Office of the Circuit Executive staff member Debra Landis for her invaluable diligence, grace and expertise. In addition, the Committee acknowledges with gratitude the singular contributions of Joseph Franaszek, Esq. For many years, Mr. Franaszek has worked with the Committee on a voluntary basis, providing careful research and drafting assistance, as well as a unique “institutional memory” that enables the changing membership of the Committee to understand how existing instructions came to be formulated. Mr. Franaszek has performed an invaluable service to the bench and bar, and has earned the Committee’s enduring respect. iii CAVEAT These model jury instructions are written and organized by judges who are appointed to the Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions Committee by the Chief Circuit Judge. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals does not adopt these instructions as definitive. Indeed, occasionally the correctness of a given instruction may be the subject of a Ninth Circuit opinion. Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions Committee July 2010 iv JURY INSTRUCTION NUMBERS CONVERSION TABLE 2003 EDITION 2010 EDITION TITLE (INCLUDING ONLINE UPDATES) 1.1 1.1 Duty of Jury 1.2 1.2 The Charge—Presumption of Innocence 1.3 1.3 What Is Evidence 1.4 1.4 What Is Not Evidence 1.5 2.13 Evidence for Limited Purpose 1.6 1.5 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence 1.7 1.6 Ruling on Objections 1.8 1.7 Credibility of Witnesses 1.9 1.8 Conduct of the Jury 1.10 1.9 No Transcript Available to Jury 1.11 1.10 Taking Notes 1.12 1.11 Outline of Trial 1.13 1.12 Jury to Be Guided by English Translation/Interpretation 1.14 1.13 Separate Consideration for Each Defendant -- 1.14 Questions to Witnesses by Jurors During Trial -- 1.15 Pro Se Defendant 2.1 2.1 Cautionary Instruction—First Recess 2.2 1.16 Bench Conferences and Recesses 2.3 2.2 Stipulated Testimony 2.4 2.3 Stipulations of Fact 2.5 2.4 Judicial Notice 2.6 2.5 Deposition as Substantive Evidence v 2.7 2.6 Transcript of Recording in English 2.8 2.7 Transcript of Recording in Foreign Language -- 2.8 Disputed Transcript of Recording in Foreign Language 2.9 2.9 Foreign Language Testimony 2.10 2.10 Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts of Defendant -- 2.11 Similar Acts in Sexual Assault and Child Molestation Cases 1.5 2.12 Evidence for Limited Purpose 2.11 2.13 Photographs of Defendant, “Mugshots” 2.12 2.14 Dismissal of Some Charges Against Defendant 2.13 2.15 Disposition of Charge Against Codefendant 2.15 2.16 Defendant’s Previous Trial 3.0 3.0 Cover Sheet 3.1 3.1 Duties of Jury to Find Facts and Follow Law 3.2 3.2 Charge Against Defendant Not Evidence—Presumption of Innocence—Burden of Proof 3.3 3.3 Defendant’s Decision Not to Testify 3.4 3.4 Defendant’s Decision to Testify 3.5 3.5 Reasonable Doubt—Defined 3.6 3.6 What Is Evidence 3.7 3.7 What Is Not Evidence 3.8 3.8 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence 3.9 3.9 Credibility of Witnesses 3.10 3.10 Evidence of Other Acts of Defendant or Acts and Statements of Others (retitled: Activities Not Charged) 3.11 3.10 Activities Not Charged vi 3.12 3.11 Separate Consideration of Multiple Counts—Single Defendant 3.13 3.12 Separate Consideration of Single Count—Multiple Defendants 3.14 3.13 Separate Consideration of Multiple Counts—Multiple Defendants 3.15 3.14 Lesser Included Offense 3.16 5.11 Corruptly 3.17 5.12 Intent to Defraud 3.18 3.17 Possession—Defined 3.19 3.18 Corporate Defendant 3.20 3.19 Foreign Language Testimony -- 3.20 On or About—Defined 4.1 4.1 Statements by Defendant 4.2 4.2 Silence in the Face of Accusation 4.3 4.3 Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts of Defendant 4.4 4.4 Character of Defendant 4.5 4.5 Character of Victim 4.6 4.6 Impeachment, Prior Conviction of Defendant 4.7 4.7 Character of Witness for Truthfulness 4.8 4.8 Impeachment Evidence—Witness 4.9 [4.10-4.12 4.9 Testimony of Witnesses Involving Special reserved] Circumstances—Immunity, Benefits, Accomplice, Plea 4.13 4.10 Government’s Use of Undercover Agents and Informants 4.14 4.11 Eyewitness Identification 4.15 4.12 Child Witness vii 4.16 4.13 Deported Material Witness 4.17 4.14 Opinion Evidence, Expert Witness -- 4.15 Dual Role Testimony 4.18 4.16 Charts and Summaries Not Admitted into Evidence 4.19 4.17 Charts and Summaries Admitted into Evidence -- 4.18 Flight/Concealment of Identity -- 4.19 Lost or Destroyed Evidence 4.20 Untimely Disclosure of Exculpatory or Impeachment Evidence 5.1 5.1 Aiding and Abetting 5.2 5.2 Accessory After the Fact 5.3 5.3 Attempt 5.4 5.4 Specific Intent—General Intent 5.5 5.5 Willfully -- 5.6 Maliciously 5.6 5.7 Knowingly 5.7 5.8 Deliberate Ignorance 5.8 5.9 Presumptions 5.9 5.10 Advice of Counsel 6.1 6.1 Alibi 6.2 6.2 Entrapment -- 6.2A Sentencing Entrapment -- 6.2B Entrapment by Estoppel Defense 6.3 6.3 Entrapment Defense—Whether Witness Acted as Government Agent (retitled: Entrapment Defense—Whether Person Acted as Government Agent) viii 6.4 6.4 Insanity 6.5 -- Duress, Coercion or Compulsion (to Refute Element of Offense) 6.6 6.5 Duress, Coercion or Compulsion (Legal Excuse) -- 6.6 Necessity (Legal Excuse) -- 6.7 Justification (Legal Excuse) 6.7 6.8 Self–Defense 6.8 6.9 Diminished Capacity 6.9 6.10 Mere Presence 6.10 6.11 Public Authority or Government Authorization Defense 7.1 7.1 Duty to Deliberate 7.2 7.2 Consideration of Evidence (retitled: Consideration of Evidence—Conduct of the Jury) 7.3 7.3 Use of Notes 7.4 7.4 Jury Consideration of Punishment 7.5 7.5 Verdict Form 7.6 7.6 Communication With Court 7.7 7.7 Deadlocked Jury 7.8 7.8 Script for Post-Allen Charge Inquiry 7.9 7.9 Specific Issue Unanimity -- 7.10 Readback or Playback -- 7.11 Continuing Deliberations After Juror Is Discharged and Not Replaced -- 7.12 Resumption of Deliberations After Alternate Juror is Added -- 8.0A Misprision of Felony (18 U.S.C. § 4) ix 8.1 8.1 Arson (retitled: Arson or Attempted Arson) (18 U.S.C. § 81) -- 8.2 Conspiracy to Commit Arson (18 U.S.C. § 81) -- 8.3 Assault on Federal Officer or Employee (18 U.S.C. § 111(a)) 8.2 8.4 Assault on Federal Officer or Employee [With a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon] [Which Inflicts Bodily Injury] (18 U.S.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Can Jury Instructions Have an Impact on Trial Outcomes?
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: Document Title: Can Jury Instructions Have an Impact on Trial Outcomes? Author(s): Mona Lynch, Emily Shaw Document Number: 300717 Date Received: April 2021 Award Number: 2017-IJ-CX-0044 This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Award Number: 2017-IJ-CX-0044 Can Jury Instructions Have an Impact on Trial Outcomes? Mona Lynch (Principal Investigator) Department of Criminology, Law, and Society 2340 Social Ecology II University of California, Irvine Irvine CA 92697-7080 (949) 824-0047 [email protected] Emily Shaw (Graduate Research Assistant) Department of Psychological Science University of California, Irvine Irvine CA 92697-7080 [email protected] Award Recipient Organizational Address: The Regents of the University of California Irvine Office of Research 5171 California Avenue, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92697-7600 Project period: 01/01/2018-07/31/2020 Award amount: $489,085 This project was supported by Grant No. 2017- IJ-CX-0044 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty Instructions to Jurors: Still Not Comprehensible After All These Years Gail Stygall University of Washington
    Death penalty instructions to jurors: still not comprehensible after all these years Gail Stygall University of Washington Abstract. This paper describes and analyzes the unrevised, current state of death penalty pattern jury instructions in the state of Washington. With com- parisons to the Vndings of the Capital Jury Project, this study examines why the death penalty instructions are even more diXcult than the ordinary, diXcult to understand US pattern jury instructions. The concept of mitigation presents par- ticular problems, with jurors misunderstanding the instruction, misapplying it or ignoring it. As mitigation is the alternative to aggravation and a death penalty verdict, this problem is critical. In addition, as Judith Levi (1993) found in the Illinois death penalty pattern jury instructions, the instructions in general point to a default position for death. Washington’s pattern jury instructions for death penalty cases are as diXcult to comprehend as both pattern jury instructions in general and death penalty instructions in particular. Keywords: Jury instructions, juror comprehension, death penalty, mitigation, United States, Washington State. Resumo. Este artigo descreve e analisa o estado atual, e não revisado, de mod- elos de instrução do Júri, em casos de pena de morte, no Estado de Washington. Estabelecendo uma comparação com os resultados do “Capital Jury Project”, este estudo analisa porque as instruções fornecidas ao Júri, em casos envolvendo pena de morte, nos Estados Unidos, são ainda mais difíceis de se entender que as nor- mais, que já são difíceis. O conceito de mitigação apresenta problemas especíVcos, sendo as instruções fornecidas a este respeito mal interpretadas, não aplicadas ou ignoradas.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit
    Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit The Committee on Federal Criminal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit drafted these proposed pattern jury instructions. The Seventh Circuit Judicial Council, on November 30, 1998, approved these instructions in principle and authorized their publication for use in the Seventh Circuit. The Judicial Council wishes to express its gratitude to the judges and lawyers who have worked so long and hard to make a contribution to our system of criminal justice. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTIONS ............................................1 1.01 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT AND THE JURY ........................2 1.02 THE EVIDENCE ..................................................3 1.03 TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES (DECIDING WHAT TO BELIEVE) ......4 1.04 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE-INFERENCES .........................5 1.05 DEFINITION OF “DIRECT” AND “CIRCUMSTANTIAL” EVIDENCE ...6 1.06 WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE .........................................7 1.07 ATTORNEY INTERVIEWING WITNESS ............................8 1.08 PARTY OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL ............................9 1.09 NUMBER OF WITNESSES ........................................10 1.10 REMINDER OF VOIR DIRE OBLIGATIONS ........................11 2.01 THE CHARGE - THE INDICTMENT .....................................12 2.02 LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE ....................................13 2.03 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF .............15 2.04 DEFINITION OF REASONABLE DOUBT ...........................16 2.05
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers Darryl K
    Maryland Law Review Volume 53 | Issue 1 Article 5 The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers Darryl K. Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Darryl K. Brown, The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers, 53 Md. L. Rev. 107 (1994) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol53/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ROLE OF RACE IN JURY IMPARTIALITY AND VENUE TRANSFERS DARRYL IL BROWN* I. INTRODUCrION A. Two Cases in Point In 1990, Washington, D.C., Mayor Marion Barry was indicted on fourteen charges of drug possession and perjury arising from a federal investigation that yielded a videotape of Barry smoking crack cocaine in Washington's Vista Hotel.1 Barry and his attorney chose not to seek a change of venue for the trial, despite overwhelming pretrial public- ity about the case that included constant replays of the incriminating videotape on local television stations.2 The jury, drawn from the Dis- trict and comprised mostly of African Americans,3 convicted Barry, an African American, of only one misdemeanor possession charge-not the one arising from the videotape.4 The verdict was generally viewed as a victory for the defendant.' * Staff Attorney, University of Georgia School of Law Legal Aid Clinic.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE 2019 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF MAINE INTERNET SITE EDITION Updated 6/24/19 by Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Preface to 1998 Edition Citations to Other Pattern Instructions How to Use the Pattern Instructions Part 1—Preliminary Instructions 1.01 Duties of the Jury 1.02 Nature of Indictment; Presumption of Innocence 1.03 Previous Trial 1.04 Preliminary Statement of Elements of Crime 1.05 Evidence; Objections; Rulings; Bench Conferences 1.06 Credibility of Witnesses 1.07 Conduct of the Jury 1.08 Notetaking 1.09 Outline of the Trial Part 2—Instructions Concerning Certain Matters of Evidence 2.01 Stipulations 2.02 Judicial Notice 2.03 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement 2.04 Impeachment of Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.05 Impeachment of Defendant's Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.06 Evidence of Defendant's Prior Similar Acts 2.07 Weighing the Testimony of an Expert Witness 2.08 Caution as to Cooperating Witness/Accomplice/Paid Informant 2.09 Use of Tapes and Transcripts 2.10 Flight After Accusation/Consciousness of Guilt 2.11 Statements by Defendant 2.12 Missing Witness 2.13 Spoliation 2.14 Witness (Not the Defendant) Who Takes the Fifth Amendment 2.15 Definition of “Knowingly” 2.16 “Willful Blindness” As a Way of Satisfying “Knowingly” 2.17 Definition of “Willfully” 2.18 Taking a View 2.19 Character Evidence 2.20 Testimony by Defendant
    [Show full text]
  • Product Liability in Maryland Revisited Edward S
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 7 Article 2 Issue 1 Fall 1977 1977 Product Liability in Maryland Revisited Edward S. Digges Jr. Piper and Marbury Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Digges, Edward S. Jr. (1977) "Product Liability in Maryland Revisited," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol7/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRODUCT LIABILITY IN MARYLAND REVISITED Edward S. Digges, Jr.t The author discusses and compares the various theories of recovery available in a product liability case. He concludes that merger of the various theories into a single basic product cause of action might be procedurally beneficial. Various defenses available in product litigation, as well as procedures for invoking indemnity and contribution, are also discussed. I. INTRODUCTION Since the issue of this Law Review devoted to product liability,1 the Court of Appeals of Maryland has confirmed its previously intimated pro-consumer stance on the subject.2 Strict liability in tort has been added to the arsenal of recovery theories,3 and warranty has been stripped of some technical hurdles. 4 The recent product liability decisions5 bring Maryland into step with modern thought t B.A., 1968, Princeton University; J.D., 1971, University of Maryland; Partner, Piper and Marbury, Baltimore, Maryland; Member of Maryland Bar.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Cmx.Sagepub.Com at UNIV of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 27, 2014 Article
    University of Southern California Law From the SelectedWorks of Thomas D. Lyon May 23, 2014 36. Evidence summarized in attorneys' closing arguments predicts acquittals in criminal trials of child sexual abuse. Stacia N. Stolzenberg, University of Southern California Thomas D. Lyon, University of Southern California Available at: https://works.bepress.com/thomaslyon/94/ Child Maltreatment http://cmx.sagepub.com/ Evidence Summarized in Attorneys' Closing Arguments Predicts Acquittals in Criminal Trials of Child Sexual Abuse Stacia N. Stolzenberg and Thomas D. Lyon Child Maltreat 2014 19: 119 originally published online 11 June 2014 DOI: 10.1177/1077559514539388 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cmx.sagepub.com/content/19/2/119 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children Additional services and information for Child Maltreatment can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cmx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://cmx.sagepub.com/content/19/2/119.refs.html >> Version of Record - Jun 27, 2014 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jun 11, 2014 What is This? Downloaded from cmx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 27, 2014 Article Child Maltreatment 2014, Vol. 19(2) 119-129 ª The Author(s) 2014 Evidence Summarized in Attorneys’ Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Closing Arguments Predicts Acquittals DOI: 10.1177/1077559514539388 in Criminal Trials of Child Sexual Abuse cmx.sagepub.com Stacia N. Stolzenberg1 and Thomas D.
    [Show full text]
  • Overlooked in the Tort Reform Debate: the Growth of Erroneous Removal Theodore Eisenberg and Trevor W
    Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Volume 2, Issue 3, 551–576, November 2005 Overlooked in the Tort Reform Debate: The Growth of Erroneous Removal Theodore Eisenberg and Trevor W. Morrison* Disputes over forum often center on whether a case should proceed in state or federal court. Removal to federal court can trigger a costly forum strug- gle. When a state case is removed to federal court only to be sent back to state court, the time and resources incurred in the detour are a toll on the judicial system and waste parties’ resources. We find erroneous removal to be an increasing problem. From 1993 to 2002, a period when state tort filings noticeably decreased, the number of removed diversity tort cases increased by about 10 percent to about 8,900 per year. By 2003, removed cases comprised over 30 percent of the federal diversity docket. The per- centage of removals ultimately remanded to state court increased signifi- cantly to about 20 percent in 2003, with the remand rate exceeding 50 percent in some districts. Thus, as more cases purporting to satisfy diversity jurisdiction were being removed to federal court, and just as removals were occupying an increasing part of the federal docket, removed cases were being remanded to state court at increasing rates. Erroneous removal is a growing phenomenon that should be addressed as part of serious consid- eration of tort reform. *Address correspondence to Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell Law School, Myron Taylor Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853; email: theodore-eisenberg@postoffice.law.cornell.edu. Theodore Eisenberg is Henry Allen Mark Professor of Law, Cornell Law School; Trevor Morrison is Assistant Pro- fessor of Law, Cornell Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 100 DOCUMENTS the PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, V. TOMMY GENE DANIELS, Defendant and Appellant. C070580 COURT of APPEAL
    Page 1 1 of 100 DOCUMENTS THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TOMMY GENE DANIELS, Defendant and Appellant. C070580 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4498 June 25, 2015, Opinion Filed NOTICE: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL health issues; (3) the evidence is insufficient for several REPORTS. CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE counts; (4) the trial court erred in positioning a uniformed 8.1115(a), PROHIBITS COURTS AND PARTIES officer near defendant during trial without any finding of FROM CITING OR RELYING ON OPINIONS NOT necessity; (5) the cumulative effect of errors was CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED prejudicial; (6) the court erred in ordering section 1202.1 PUBLISHED, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED BY RULE HIV/AIDS testing; and (7) jail booking and classification 8.1115(b). THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN fees were improper because there was insufficient CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION OR ORDERED evidence of defendant's ability to pay and of the actual PUBLISHED FOR THE PURPOSES OF RULE 8.1115. administrative costs. PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Superior Court of 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Sacramento County, No. 10F08003. Penal Code in effect at the time of the charged offenses. JUDGES: MURRAY, J.; MAURO, Acting P. J., HOCH, 2 Respite care was described as a temporary J. concurred. live-in [*2] care for adopted children with behavioral problems, to give the adoptive parents OPINION BY: MURRAY, J. a respite. OPINION We reverse as to the HIV test order and otherwise affirm the judgment. Defendant Tommy Gene Daniels appeals following conviction on multiple counts of lewd or lascivious acts FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND upon five child victims (Pen.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Abuse Allegations the Law, the Science, the Myths, the Reality
    N.C.A.D.R.C. Kimberly Hart & Todd James P.O. Box 638 Holland, OH 43528-0638 Child Abuse Allegations The Law, the Science, the Myths, the Reality Sept. 6 – 8, 2012 Bally’s Hotel & Casino Las Vegas Defense Lawyers Trial Demonstration (Sat.) Public Defenders Direct & Cross Examinations Family Court Lawyers Alleged child victim Investigators CPS Investigator or Cop Mental Health Professionals SANE Nurse examiner Other concerned Professionals Prosecution Psychologist Defense Psychologist CLE + CE credits may be available Tie-together the above September 6 - 8, 2012 at the Bally’s Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M Name: ______________________________________________________________________ Firm or Office:_______________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________________ City: ______________________________ State: __________ Zip:____________________ Tele: ( )_______________________ Fax: ( )__________________________ Email: __________________________________Occupation: ________________________ Atty Bar# : ____________________STATE: ________ Bar #____________________STATE: _______ (If licensed in more than one state) *************************************************************************************** Includes registration, continental breakfasts, breaks, materials on CD-Rom or Thumb-drive, etc. Faxed, mailed, or emailed by 7/20/2012 Faxed, mailed, or emailed after 7/21/2012 Private Practice …………….$ 525 Private Practice…………….$ 560 (Attorneys,
    [Show full text]
  • State of Maryland V. Karon Sayles, No. 15, September Term, 2020; State of Maryland V
    State of Maryland v. Karon Sayles, No. 15, September Term, 2020; State of Maryland v. Bobby Jamar Johnson, No. 16, September Term, 2020; State of Maryland v. Dalik Daniel Oxely, No. 17, September Term, 2020 JURY NULLIFICATION – JURY QUESTIONS – SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS – PREJUDICE – Court of Appeals held that, despite circumstance that jury nullification sometimes occurs, jury nullification is not authorized in Maryland and jury does not have right to engage in nullification. No case, statute, or rule in Maryland authorizes or gives juries right to engage in jury nullification, i.e., there is no grant of authority permitting jury to utilize nullification. Court of Appeals reiterated that Maryland case law makes clear that it is improper for attorney to argue jury nullification to jury, and that jury instructions on law are binding and trial courts must advise juries as much. On request, during voir dire, trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with jury instructions concerning certain fundamental principles. In addition, legally inconsistent verdicts and verdict resulting from jury nullification are comparable because both involve circumstances in which jury acts contrary to trial court’s instructions as to proper application of law and both are impermissible. Court of Appeals held that, taken together, these principles of law lead to conclusion that jury nullification is not authorized in Maryland and jury may be so advised. Although jury may have inherent ability to nullify and Court recognized that jury nullification occurs, jury does not have right to engage in jury nullification. Rather, in Maryland, jury is required to determine facts and render verdict based on instructions provided to it by trial court.
    [Show full text]