copy and paste this google map to your website or blog!
Press copy button and paste into your blog or website.
(Please switch to 'HTML' mode when posting into your blog. Examples: WordPress Example, Blogger Example)
Input Form:Deal with this potential dealer,buyer,seller,supplier,manufacturer,exporter,importer
(Any information to deal,buy, sell, quote for products or service)
CALCRIM No. 361. Failure to Explain or Deny Adverse Evidence Facts Beyond the Scope of Examination If the defendant has limited his or her testimony to a specific factual issue, it is error for the prosecutor to comment, or the trial court to instruct, on his or her failure to explain or deny other evidence against him or her that is beyond the scope
People v. Ford - 45 Cal. 3d 431 - Thu, 05 19 1988 | California Supreme . . . The logic of permitting comment or instructions in criminal cases that an adverse inference may be drawn from a party's failure to call an available witness whose testimony would naturally be expected to be favorable is recognized by our sister states and the federal courts
THE PEOPLE v. JASON JONES (2010) | FindLaw Jason D Jones appeals his conviction on charges involving the sale and possession for sale of cocaine base He claims there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction, relying in part on the fact that the instructions and verdict forms referred to cocaine instead of cocaine base
People v. Ford (1988) – Case Brief Summary (California) | Lawpipe In People v Ford (1988) 45 Cal 3d 431, the California Supreme Court held that it was constitutionally permissible for the prosecution to comment on the defendant's failure to call logical accomplice or codefendant witnesses who had not exercised their privilege against self-incrimination
Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions This edition of CALCRIM includes a number of additions and changes to the instructions that were first published in 2005 In providing these updates, the Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions is fulfilling its charge to ensure that CALCRIM reflects all changes in the law
CA 361. Failure to Explain or Deny Adverse Evidence If the defendant failed in (his her) testimony to explain or deny evidence against (him her), and if (he she) could reasonably be expected to have done so based on what (he she) knew, you may consider (his her) failure to explain or deny in evaluating that evidence
THE PEOPLE v. CHARLES ARTHUR WILLIAMS (2010) | FindLaw In his closing argument, trial counsel for Charles Williams noted that the prosecution had not called the private security guards as witnesses because the deputy sheriff did not include their names in his arrest report
gj, 30, Sc:[:] 1 7. 8 1 5 Ergdcsic I. ,, :[. ,,i. yj. k, ,; . g~ ld impact their preparat on and presentation of his defense (See 16a RT 1589-1 592 ) While Taylor's initial failure to cooperate with Attridge may have fallen short of an irreconcilable conflict and been present regardless of whom represented Taylor during mental- competency proceedings, the court saw that Taylor's continuing unease stemmed fr
People v. Grandberry | CCAP Trial court may properly instruct the jury with CALCRIM No 361 when a testifying defendant fails to explain or deny matters that are within the scope of relevant cross-examination, even if he is not directly questioned about the incriminating evidence