THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 16 - CHAPTER 300
Go to Volume 16 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 300 Table of Contents

300.10 Trial By Jury

    300.10.1 Constitutional Claims: Trial By Jury -- General Principles
    300.10.2 Constitutional Claims: Impairing Jury's Assessment Of Witness Credibility As Violation Of Right To Trial By Jury
    300.10.3 Constitutional Claims: Instructions Impacting Elements Of The Offenses As Violative Of Right To Trial By Jury
    300.10.4 Constitutional Right To Jury Determination Of Factual Component Of Mixed Questions Of Law And Fact
    300.10.5 Constitutional Claims: Trial By Jury: Premature Discussion Or Deliberation Undermines Prosecution's Burden

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 16 - CHAPTER 300

PRACTICE NOTE: "The Constitution is a solemn promise that the people of this nation have made to each other that neither life nor liberty shall be taken by our government without faithful adherence to certain basic principles. As Justice Scalia observed in Carella, 'The constitutional right to a jury trial embodies ... a structural guarantee that reflects a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power - a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. A defendant may assuredly insist upon observance of this guarantee even when the evidence against him is so overwhelming as to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why the Court has found it constitutionally impermissible for a judge to direct a verdict for the state.' [Citations.] Our fundamental principles are subject to refinement and reinterpretation as we live and learn from experience. As distasteful as it may be for both the government and the defendant to start over, the fate of a single trial pales in comparison to the imperative of keeping faith with the charter of our collective existence." [Internal quotation marks omitted.] (U.S. v. Keys (9th Cir. 1996) 95 F3d 874, 881)

    However, Lewis v. U.S. (1996) 518 US 322, 323 [116 SCt 2163; 135 LEd2d 590] held that there is no federal constitutional right to a jury trial for petty offenses, even when severed offenses are tried together and the defendant faces a potential aggregate prison term that exceeds six months.

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 16 - CHAPTER 300

    300.10.2    Constitutional Claims: Impairing Jury's Assessment Of Witness Credibility As Violation Of Right To Trial By Jury

PRACTICE NOTE: Jury instructions which impair the jury's central function of assessing the credibility of witnesses may implicate the defendant's federal constitutional right to trial by jury. (6th and14th Amendments.) (See People v. Cudjo (CA 1993) 6 C4th 585, 637-43, fn 1 [25 CR2d 390], Kennard, J. dissenting [suggesting that the right to trial by jury is implicated when the trial judge usurps the jury's function of assessing the credibility of witnesses].)

    Franklin v. Henry (9th Cir. 1997) 122 F3d 1270, 1273 held that an error in excluding a statement relating to the credibility of a child witness was of constitutional magnitude based on Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 US 683, 690-91 [106 SCt 2142; 90 LEd2d 636]. Hence, jury instructions which impact the jury's assessment of a witness' credibility may also be of constitutional magnitude. For example, the trial court may not, consistent with the due process rights of defendant to a fair trial before an impartial judge and jury, express to the jury any personal opinion of credibility of witness and should scrupulously avoid even an appearance of partiality. (People v. Robinson (CO 1993) 874 P2d 453, 459.)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 5.3].

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 16 - CHAPTER 300

    See NCJIC 300.4 [Failure Of Instructions To Assure Proper Jury Determination Of An Element Of The Charged Offense (Due Process/Trial By Jury)].

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 16 - CHAPTER 300

    See NCJIC 300.22 [Jury Determinations Of Factual Component Of Mixed Questions Of Law And Fact].

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 16 - CHAPTER 300

PRACTICE NOTE: The federal constitutional rights to a fair trial by jury and due process (5th, 6th and 14th Amendments) require that the prosecution bear the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (See In re Winship (1970) 397 US 358 [90 SCt 1068; 25 LEd2d 368].)

    These rights are implicated by a juror's premature discussion, deliberation and/or formation of opinions about the case before the jury has heard all of the evidence, arguments of counsel and jury instructions. (See In re Hitchings (CA 1993) 6 C4th 97, 118, fn 6 [24 CR2d 74].) A juror’s premature formulation of an opinion skews the burden of proof in violation of the defendant’s federal constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process. (U.S. Const. 6th and 14th Amendments; see also Patton v. Yount (1984) 467 US 1025, 1035 [104 SCt 2885; 81 LEd2d 847] ["fixed opinion" prior to trial renders juror disqualified]; McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (1984) 464 US 548, 552 [104 SCt 845; 78 LEd2d 663]; Winebrenner v. U.S. (8th Cir. 1945) 147 F2d 322, 328.)

    The constitutional deprivation is especially acute when the juror expresses his or her opinion. (See Delaney v. U.S. (1st Cir. 1952) 199 F2d 107, 113; People v. Purvis (CA 1963) 60 C2d 323, 341, fn 14 [33 CR 104] ["The influence that lurks in an opinion once formed is so persistent that it unconsciously fights detachment from the mental processes of the average man...."]; People v. Brown (CA 1976) 61 CA3d 476 [132 CR 217] [expression of an opinion as to the guilt of the defendant before hearing all the evidence was prejudicial misconduct].)