Jury Trial
The California 2nd District Court of Appeal vacated a sentence enhancement, finding that the trial court erred in denying defense counsel the opportunity to present a closing argument. The court stated in relevant part: Under the determinate sentencing scheme, the court may not impose an upper term sentence unless an aggravating circumstance applies. (§ 1170,…
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred where it failed to instruct the jury on the “choice-of-evils” defense. The court stated in relevant part: Regarding the first assignment of error, we review a trial court’s refusal to provide a requested jury instruction for legal error. State v. Jackson, 334 Or App…
The Court of Appeals of Washington remanded a transfer case to the superior court and offered the following language in support. “Our Supreme Court has made clear that trial courts must be vigilant in addressing the threat of explicit or implicit racial bias that affects a defendant’s right to a fair trial. We hold that…
The Court considers a question of first impression — whether a criminal defendant must be provided in-person interpreting services, rather than video remote interpreting (VRI) services, at his jury trial.
From the introduction: “This project, which started in fall 2020, was initially intended to be significantly smaller than it turned out to be. Our coalition of authors intended to outline ways juvenile defenders could streamline their representation of youth charged with sex offenses. As the project gained momentum, this team of trial attorneys, social workers,…
The Louisiana Supreme Court took up defense counsel’s writ following the trial court’s denial of a motion to quash following the State’s dismissal and refiling of charges following two adverse rulings, in effect evading all appellate review of the court’s ruling. The court found the accused, Mr. Reimonenq’s, 14th Amendment right to due process and…
From the Abstract: “Modern doctrine and scholarship largely take it for granted that offenders should be criminally punished for reckless acts. Yet, developments in our understanding of human behavior can shed light on how we define and attribute criminal liability, or at least force us to grapple with the categories that have existed for so…
This amicus brief by The Juvenile Law Center and The Gault Center argues that young people have a constitutional right to a jury trial pursuant to the 6th and 14th Amendment, in cases with serious consequences, such as sex offenses with numerous collateral consequences, in juvenile court, without “comparable adult procedural protections”. Further, the brief…
This amicus brief by Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, Juvenile Law Center, and others argues that a juvenile court adjudication should not be used to enhance a sentence in adult court under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because a juvenile court adjudication lacks the same reliability as a criminal conviction, and…
