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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305
Go to Volume 18 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 305 Table of Contents

Research Notes

    305.4.1 Deadlock, Deliberation Coercion
    305.4.2 Death Penalty
    305.4.3 Defendant's Character
    305.4.4 Defendant's Testimony
    305.4.5 Defenses In General
    305.4.6 Destructive Device, Explosive, Etc.
    305.4.7 Digests Of Proposed Instructions
    305.4.8 Double Jeopardy
    305.4.9 Drug Offenses
    305.4.10 Drunk Driving
    305.4.11 Duress

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

See also NCJIC Research Notes 305.19.10 [Supplemental Instruction/Deliberation Procedure].)

Criminal Procedure: Antideadlock Jury Instructions in the District of Columbia, 35 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1179, Summer, 1986, District of Columbia, Matthew M. Barasch.

After Lowenfield: The Allen Charge in the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Cir. Survey) Jensen, 19 Golden Gate U.L.Rev. 75, Spring 1989.

How Does the Dynamite Charge Affect Jury Determinations? [case note: U.S. v. Arpan (8th Cir. 1988) 887 F.2d 873] Stanton, 35 S. Dakota L.Rev. 461, Fall 1990.

Instructions Urging Dissenting Jurors in State Criminal Case to Give Due Consideration to Opinion of Majority (Allen charge) -- Modern Cases, 97 ALR3d 96.

Jury Numerical Division: Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry, 77 ALR3d 769.

Modern Status of Rule That Court May Instruct Dissenting Jurors to Give Due Consideration to Opinion of Majority (Allen Charge) 44 ALR Fed 468.

Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court's Inquiry as to Numerical Division of Jury, 77 ALR3d 769.

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

A Lawyer's Ethical Considerations When Her Client Elects Death: The Model Rules In The Capital Context. J.L. Richards, 3 San Diego Just. J. 127-75 Winter 1995.

Against the Antisympathy Instruction [case note: Calif. v. Brown (1987) 107 S. Ct. 837 (1987)] Sylva, 15 Hastings Const.L.Q. 669, Summer 1988.

Annotation, Beliefs regarding capital punishment as disqualifying juror in capital case -- post-Witherspoon cases, 39 ALR3d 550, supp. sec. 9.

But Was He Sorry? The Role of Remorse In Capital Sentencing, Theodore Eisenberg, Steven P. Garvey, Martin T. Wells, 83 Cornell L. Rev. 1599, Sept. 1998.

California Death Penalty Defense Manual, Penalty Phase Instructions, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and California Public Defenders Association, 1993.

The California Death Penalty Scheme: Requiem for Furman? Steven F. Shatz and Nina Rivkind, 72 N.Y.U. Law Rev. 1283 (1997).

Capital Punishment in the Age of Terrorism, 41 Catholic Law. 187 (2001).

Capital Punishment (Sentencing; Project: Twentieth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure; U.S. Supreme Ct. and Cts. of App. 1989 - 1900), Menard, Grossenbacher and Silverstein, 79 Georgetown L.J. 1123, April 1991.

Childhood Abuse and Adult Murder: Implications for the Death Penalty, Crocker, 77 North Carolina Law Review 1143 (1999).

Common Sense Justice And Capital Punishment: Problematizing the "Will of the People," Craig Haney, 3 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 303, June/September, 1997.

Comprehension of Judges' Instructions in the Penalty Phase of a Capital Trial; Focus on Mitigating Circumstances, Luginbuhl, 16 L. and Human Behavior 203, April 1992.

Concepts of Culpability and Deathworthiness: Differentiating Between Guilt and Punishment In Death Penalty Cases, Phyllis L. Crocker, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 21, October, 1997.

Confusing Jury Instructions in Death Case Accepted as Grounds for Appeal, Sargeant, 28 Trial 17, Oct. 1992.

Consecutive Life Sentences treated as One General Life Sentence for Parole Purposes and Great Deference given to Trial Judges in Continuing Jury Deliberations in Capital Cases (Annual Survey of S. Carolina Law: Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 1990) Daley, 43 S. Carolina L.Rev. 47, Autumn, 1991.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Nineteenth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: United States Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals 1988 - 1989) Zipps, Sander, Konstantaras, Pattermann and Mejia, 78 Georgetown L.J. 1277, April 1990.

Death Penalty (Supreme Court Review) Bernstein, 24 Trial 94, May 1988.

Death Penalty Mitigation and the Role of the Forensic Psychologist, 27 Law & Psychol. Rev. 55 (2003).

Deathly Errors: Juror Misperceptions Concerning Parole in the Imposition of the Death Penalty, Paduano and Smith, 18 Columbia Human Rights L.Rev. 211, Spring 1987.

Dictionaries and Death: Do Capital Jurors Understand Mitigation? P.M. Tiersma, 1995 Utah L. Rev. 1-49, 1995.

Due Process Requirements Of Jury Charges In Capital Cases: Simmons v. South Carolina ((1994) 114 S.Ct. 2187) E.W. Richardson, 64 U. Cin. L. Rev. 755-96. Winter 1996.

The Eighth Amendment and Sympathy Instructions to Juries in Death Penalty Cases, Jacobus, 10 Harvard J. of L. and Pub. Policy 757, Summer 1987.

Foreclosed Impartiality in Capital Sentencing: Jurors' Predispositions, Guilt-Trial Experience and Premature Decision Making, William J. Bowers, Marla Sandys and Benjamin D. Steiner, 83 Cornell L.Rev. 1476, Sept. 1998.

Government Psychiatric Examinations and the Death Penalty. W.S. White, 37 Ariz. L. Rev. 869-94, Fall 1995.

Herrera v. Collins (93) 113 SCt 853; A New Innocence Principle? G. Bylinsky, 11 Harv. Black Letter L.J. 191-203 Spring 1994.

Herrera v. Collins (93) 113 SCt 853: Assuming the Constitution Prohibits the Execution of an Innocent Person, Is The Needle Worth the Search? P. Tanner, 11 Harv. BlackLetter L.J. 191-203 Spring 1994.

Illinois Death Penalty Instructions too Confusing; Killer to be Resentenced, Sargeant, 29 Trial 94, Feb. 1993.

Imposing the Death Penalty on Capital Defendants Who are Mentally Retarded is Not Prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution if Instructions to the Jury Allow for the Consideration of Mental Retardation as a Mitigating Factor [case note: Penry v. Lynaugh (1989) 109 S.Ct. 2934, Hinton, 39 Drake L.Rev. 921, Summer 1990.

Integrating Theories for Capital Trials: Developing the Theory of Life, Mary Ann Tally, The Champion, November 1998, p. 34.

The Meaning of Life for Virginia Jurors and Its Effect on Reliability in Capital Sentencing, Hood, 75 Va.L.Rev. 1605, Nov. 1989.

Mental Illness and the Death Penalty, Professor Christopher Slobogin, 2 Calif. Crim. L.Rev. 3.

Mills v. Maryland [108 S. Ct. 1860]: The Supreme Court Guarantees the Consideration of Mitigating Circumstances Pursuant to Lockett v. Ohio [98 S. Ct. 2954] 38 Cath. U.L.Rev. 907, Sum. 1989.

Mumia Abu-Jamal and the "Death Row Phenomenon." D.P. Blank. 48 Stan. L. Rev. 1625-59 (July 1996).

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and the Death Penalty. D.D. Burke and M.A. Nixon, 38 How. L.J. 183-99 Fall 1994.

Saving Lives Through Peaceful Means, Michael Ogul, FORUM, November 1998, Volume 25, No. 4., p. 29.

Selecting Capital Jurors Uncommonly Willing To Condemn A Man To Die: Lower Courts’ Contradictory Readings Of Wainright v. Witt and Morgan v. Illinois, Holdrigdge, John, 19 Miss. C.L.Rev. 283, 299-303 (1999) [discussing how many courts have misconstrued Witt by employing a case-specific analysis in determining the eligibility of pro-life jurors].

Sifting Through the Fallout of N. Carolina's Death Penalty Jurisprudence: Getting Down to the Real McKoy (Survey of Developments in N. Carolina Law, 1990) [case note: McKoy v. N. Carolina (1990) 110 S.Ct. 1227] Martin, 69 N. Carolina L.Rev. 1504, Sept. 1991.

Simmons v. South Carolina [114 SCt 2187 (1994)]: Safe-Guarding A Capital Defendant's Right To Fair Sentencing. M. Zaug, 26 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 511-47 Spring 1995.

Sufficiency of Evidence, for Purposes of Death Penalty, to Establish Statutory Aggravating Circumstance That Defendant Committed Murder While under Sentence of Imprisonment, in Confinement or Correctional Custody, and the Like--post-Gregg Cases, 67 ALR4th 942.

Sufficiency of Evidence, for Purposes of Death Penalty, to Establish Statutory Aggravating Circumstance That Defendant Was Previously Convicted of or Committed Other Violent Offense, Had History of Violent Conduct, Posed Continuing Threat to Society, and the Like--post-Gregg Cases, 65 ALR4th 838.

Sufficiency of Evidence, for Purposes of Death Penalty, to Establish Statutory Aggravating Circumstance That in Committing Murder, Defendant Created Risk of Death or Injury to More than One Person, to Many Persons, and the Like--post-Gregg Cases, 64 ALR4th 837.

Sufficiency of evidence, for purposes of death penalty, to establish statutory aggravating circumstance that murder was committed for pecuniary gain, as consideration or in expectation of receiving something of monetary value, and the like--post-Gregg cases, 66 ALR4th 417.

Sufficiency of Evidence, for Death Penalty Purposes, to Establish Statutory Aggravating Circumstance That Murder Was Committed in Course of Committing, Attempting, or Fleeing from Other Offense, and the Like--post-Gregg Cases, 67 ALR4th 887.

Sufficiency of Evidence, for Purposes of Death Penalty, to Establish Statutory Aggravating Circumstance That Murder Was Committed to Avoid Arrest or Prosecution, to Effect Escape from Custody, to Hinder Governmental Function or Enforcement of Law, and the Like--post-Gregg cases, 64 ALR4th 755.

Sufficiency of Evidence, for Purposes of Death Penalty, to Establish Statutory Aggravating Circumstance That Murder Was Heinous, Cruel, Depraved, or the Like--post-Gregg cases, 63 ALR4th 478.

The Supreme Court Guarantees the Consideration of Mitigation Circumstances Pursuant to Lockett v. Ohio [case note: Mills v. Maryland (1988) 108 S.Ct. 1860] Strassmann, 38 Catholic U. L.Rev. 907, Summer 1989.

Supreme Court Ruling Seen as Blow to Maryland Death Penalty, 19 Crim. Just. Newsletter 5, June 15, 1988.

Supreme Court's Views on Constitutionality of Death Penalty and Procedures under Which it Is Imposed, 51 L. Ed. 2d 886.

Supreme Court's Views on Constitutionality of Death Penalty and Procedures under Which it Is Imposed or Carried Out, 90 L. Ed. 2d 1001.

Taking The Death Penalty Personally: Justice Thurgood Marshall, R. Coyne, 47 Okla. L. Rev. 35-54 Spring 1994.

Unconstitutional Jury Instructions in Death Penalty Cases -- Was the Missouri Supreme Court's Reliance on Walton [Walton v. Arizona (1990) 110 S.Ct. 3047] Correct in Feltrop v. Missouri [(1991) 111 S.Ct. 2918]?, Estrin, 12 Pace L.Rev. 579, Fall 1992.

Unequal Before The Law: Men, Women And The Death Penalty, Shapiro, Andrea, 8 Am.U.J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 427, 460-63 (2000) [discussing equal protection challenges in capital cases premised on disparate sentences given to male and female defendants].

The Utility of Witt: Understanding the Language of Death Qualification, 54 Baylor L. Rev. 677 (2002).

Validity of Death Penalty, under Federal Constitution, as Affected by Consideration of Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances--supreme Court Cases, 111 L. Ed. 2d 947.

The Victim Impact Statement And Capital Crimes: Trial By Jury And Death By Character. C.A. Rhodes, 21 Southwstrn. U. L. Rev. 1-44, Spring 1994.

Victims and the Death Penalty: Inside and Outside the Courtroom: Constitutional Implications of Crime Victims as Participants, 88 Cornell L. Rev. 282 (2003).

Will the Punishment Fit the Victims? The Case for Pre-Trial Disclosure, and the Uncharted Future of Victim Impact Information in Capital Jury Sentencing. J.F. Anderson, 28 Rutgers L.J. 369-434,. Winter 1997.

Wharton's Criminal Law, (15th Ed. 1993) § 152, pp. 318-39.

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Cross-examination of Character Witness for Accused with Reference to Particular Acts or Crimes--modern State Rules, 13 ALR4th 796.

Direction as to Good Character, [Great Britain] Coutts, 55 J. Crim.L. 73, Feb. 1991.

Direction of Good Character, [Great Britain] 55 J.Crim.L. 477, 521 Nov. 1991.

Is The Witness Believable? A New Look At Truth And Veracity Character Evidence And Bad Acts Relevant To Truthfulness In A Criminal Case, Fred Warren Bennett, 9 St. Thomas L. Rev. 569, Spring 1997.

Prejudicial Effect of Prosecutor's Comment on Character or Reputation of Accused, Where Accused Has Presented Character Witnesses, 70 ALR2d 559.

The "Standing Alone" Instruction Given in Connection with Evidence of Good Character: A Century of Confusion in the Federal Courts, Wang, 12 Crim.Just.J. 33, Winter 1990.

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

See also NCJIC Research Notes 305.23.3 [Witness Credibility].

Comment or Argument by Court or Counsel That Prosecution Evidence Is Uncontradicted as Amounting to Improper Reference to Accused's Failure to Testify, 14 ALR3d 723.

Defendant's Credibility: Propriety in Federal Criminal Trial Instructions Disparaging Defendants' Credibility, 59 ALR Fed 514.

Failure to Object to Improper Questions or Comments as to Defendant's Pretrial Silence or Failure to Testify as Constituting Waiver of Right to Complain of Error--modern Cases, 32 ALR4th 774.

Impeachment of Defendant in Criminal Case by Showing Defendant's Prearrest Silence--state Cases, 35 ALR4th 731.

Jury Instruction on Failure of Accused to Testify: A Defense Strategy -- Carter v. Kentucky, Comment, 5 Western New England L. Rev. 227, 1982.

Propriety under Griffin v. California and Prejudicial Effect of Unrequested Instruction That No Inferences Against Accused Should Be Drawn from His Failure to Testify, 18 ALR3d 1335.

Right of an Accused to a Fair Trial: Direction by Trial Judge to Jury that it Might Think, the Matter Being One Solely for it, that the Accused had the Greatest Interest of all Witnesses in the Outcome of the Trial so that His Evidence Should be Closely Scrutinized -- Fairness of Trial Impaired [Australia], Starke, 66 Australian L.J. 51, Jan. 1992.

Self-incrimination: Instructions on Inference Arising from Refusal of Witness Other than Accused to Answer Questions on the Ground That Answer Would Tend to Incriminate Him, 24 ALR2d 895.

Supreme Court's Views as to What Comments by Prosecuting Attorney Violate Accused's Privilege Against Self-incrimination under Federal Constitution's Fifth Amendment, 99 L. Ed. 2d 926. 4.

Supreme Court's Views as to What Courtroom Statements Made by Prosecuting Attorney During Criminal Trial Violate Due Process or Constitute Denial of Fair Trial, 40 L. Ed. 2d 886.

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Alternative Defenses: The "Invisible Burden" on the Trial Judge, Doran, 1991 Crim.L.Rev. 878, Dec. 1991.

Black Rage Confronts The Law, Harris, (New York University Press, NY 1997).

The Circuit Split Over Instructing the Jury Specifically on the Good Faith Defense: A Consequence of Superlegislation by Courts or the Standards of Appellate Review? D.S. Jonas, 46 Syracuse L. Rev. 61-101 '95.

Criminal Law Defenses: A Systematic Analysis, Robinson, 82 Columbia L. Rev. 199, 1982.

Cultural Defense: Limited Admissibility for New Immigrants. V. Ma, 3 San Diego Just. J. 461-84 Summer 1995.

Feasibility and Admissibility of Mob Mentality Defenses. 108 Harv. L. Rev. 1111-26 March 1995.

On Multiculturalism, Concepts of Crime, and the "De Minimis" Defense. S. Pomorski. 1997 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 51-99. 1997.

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

The Aftermath of Bailey v. United States: Should Possession Replace Carry and Use under 18 USC  924(c)(1), 5 J.L. & Pol'y 679, 1997, Kristin Whiting.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Limiting the Ability of States to Define Elements of an Offense in the Context of Hate Crime Legislation, 30 Seton Hall L. Rev. 893, 2000, Joshua S. Bratspies.

Damage to and Intrusion upon Property: Provide a New Law Regarding Bombs and Explosives; Provide for Jurisdiction in Juvenile Courts; Provide Specific Definitions and a Comprehensive List of Explosives, 13 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 108, November 1996, John Howe.

Learning from Oklahoma City: Federal and State Explosives Laws in the United States, 5-FALL Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 35, Fall, 1995, Reynold N. Hoover.

Policy on Ordnance and Explosives, 1996-MAR Army Law 152, Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-50-280, United States Army Legal Services Agency.

Possession of Bomb, Molotov Cocktail, or Similar Device as Criminal Offense, 42 ALR3d 1230.

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Federal Criminal Practice Jury Selection and Instructions, FCP IL-CLE 9 S-1, (Handbook Supplement) Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education, October, 2000, Patrick A. Tuite.

Instructions for Specific Crimes: Crimes of Homicide, CRMJII MA-CLE 2.I-i (Main Handbook) Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. June, 1999, Massachusetts Superior Court Criminal Practice Jury Instructions, Chapter 2, Part I.

Jury Instructions for Civil and Criminal RICO Cases with Commentary, 1987 Brigham Young U.L.Rev. 1-150, Winter 1987.

Model Jury Instructions for the Actual Malice Standard, Spar, 39 S. Carolina L.Rev. 79, Autumn 1986.

The Paper Side of Jury Litigation: Instructions, Special Interrogatories, Motions Special to Jury Practice, Practising Law Institute, PLI Order No. G0-00BN October, 2000, Patent Litigation 2000, Richard L. Rainey Virginia L. Carron 619 PLI/Pat 631.

Procedural Aspects of Jury Instruction, CRMJIII MA-CLE 5-i, (Main Handbook) Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, Inc. June, 1999 Massachusetts Superior Court Criminal Practice Jury Instructions, Chapter 5, Kevin E. Connelly.

Regulating Decision Effects of Legally Sufficient Jury Instructions, 73 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1105, July, 2000, Darryl K. Brown.

Regulating Decision Effects of Legally Sufficient Jury Instructions, 88 Ill. B.J. 80, February, 2000, 239, Susan M. Witt.

Texts:

Ackley, Criminal Defense Instructions, (Knowles Publishing, Inc., 1989).

Branson, The Law of Instructions to Juries in Civil and Criminal Cases: Rules and a Complete Collection of Approved and Annotated Forms [United States], 4th Ed., (West Publishing, 1977 to current).

Devitt, Blackmar Wolf and O'Malley, Federal Jury Practice, Criminal and Instructions (West Publishing, 3d Ed., 1992).

Rucker & Overland, California Criminal Forms & Instructions, Vol. 3 § 37:1-37.33, (Bancroft and Whitney, 1983).

Saltzburg and Perlman, Federal Criminal Jury Instructions, (Michie Co., 1990).

Sand, Siffert, Loughlin and Reiss, Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Criminal, (Matthew Bender, 1984).

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Constitutional Scope of Double Jeopardy Extended Prosecutorial Misconduct Leads to Murder Mistrial, 2 NO. 5 Lawyers J. 3, March 10, 2000, MaryAnn Fenicato.

Double Jeopardy's Demise; Double Jeopardy: the History, the Law, George C. Thomas III, (New York University Press, 1998)

The Federalization of Criminal Law and Double Jeopardy, 31 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 175, 1999, Taryn A. Merkl.

100 Years of Double Jeopardy Erosion: Criminal Collateral Estoppel Made Extinct, 48 Drake L. Rev. 379, 2000, Charles William Hendricks.

Review of Criminal Procedure, Double Jeopardy, 88 Geo. L.J. 1272, May, 2000, Ellis M. Johnston.

Three Strikes, Two Bites at the Apple, and One Offense?: an Examinaiton of Monge v. California and the Double Jeopardy Clause's Inapplicability to Three Strikes Law, 77 N.C. L. Rev. 2007, June, 1999, L. Alison Heller.

Wading in the Sargasso Sea: the Double Jeopardy Clause, Non-capital Sentencing Proceedings, and California's "Three Strikes" Law Collide in Monge v. California, 27 Pepp. L. Rev. 861, 2000, Michael Kline.

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Admissibility, in Criminal Prosecution, of Expert Opinion Allegedly Stating Whether Drugs Were Possessed with Intent to Distribute--state Cases, 83 ALR4th 629.

Admissibility, in Prosecution for Illegal Sale of Narcotics, of Evidence of Other Sales, 93 ALR2d 1097.

Conviction of Possession of Illicit Drugs Found in Premises of Which Defendant Was in Non-exclusive Possession, 56 ALR3d 948.

Conviction of Possession of Illicit Drugs Found in Automobile of Which Defendant Was Not Sole Occupant, 57 Alr3d 1319.

Minimum Quantity of Drug Required to Support Claim That Defendant Is Guilty of Criminal "Possession" of Drug under State Law, 4 ALR5th 1.

Modern Status of the Law Concerning Entrapment to Commit Narcotics Offense--federal Cases, 22 ALR Fed. 731.

Modern Status of the Law Concerning Entrapment to Commit Narcotics Offense--state Cases, 62 ALR3d 110.

Offense of Carrying Concealed Weapon as Affected by Manner of Carrying or Place of Concealment, 43 ALR2d 492.

Permitting Unlawful Use of Narcotics in Private Home as Criminal Offense, 54 ALR3d 1297.

Propriety of Instruction of Jury on Conscious Avoidance of Knowledge of Nature of Substance or Transaction in Prosecution for Possession or Distribution of Drugs, 109 ALR Fed 710.

Prosecutions Based upon Alleged Illegal Possession of Instruments to Be Used in Violation of Narcotics Laws, 92 ALR3d 47.

Punishment for "Just Us" -- A Constitutional Analysis of the Crack Cocaine Sentencing Statutes. L. A. Wytsma, student author, 3 Geo. Mason Indep. L. Rev. 473-513, Summer 1995.

State Law Criminal Liability of Licensed Physician for Prescribing or Dispensing Drug or Similar Controlled Substance, 13 ALR5th 1.

Validity and Construction of Statute Creating Presumption or Inference of Intent to Sell from Possession of Specified Quantity of Illegal Drugs, 60 ALR3d 1128.

Validity, Construction, and Effect of State Statute Regulating Sale of Counterfeit or Imitation Controlled Substances, 84 ALR4th 936.

Wytsma, Punishment for "Just Us" -- A Constitutional Analysis of the Crack Cocaine Sentencing Statutes, 3 Geo. Mason Indep. L. Rev. 473-513, Summer 1995.

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

Automobiles: Driving under the Influence, or When Addicted to the Use of Drugs as Criminal Offense, 17 ALR3d 815.

Challenges to Use of Breath Tests for Drunk Drivers Based on Claim That Partition or Conversion Ratio Between Measured Breath Alcohol and Actual Blood Alcohol Is Inaccurate, 90 ALR4th 155.

Construction and Application of Statutes Creating Presumption or Other Inference of Intoxication from Specified Percentages of Alcohol Present in System, 16 ALR3d 748.

Destruction of Ampoule Used in Alcohol Breath Test as Warranting Suppression of Result of Test, 19 ALR4th 509.

Operation of Bicycle as Within Drunk Driving Statutes, 73 ALR4th 1139.

Reckless Driving as Lesser Included Offense of Driving While Intoxicated or Similar Charge, 10 ALR4th 1252.

Suspension or Revocation of Driver's License for Refusal to Take Sobriety Test, 88 ALR2d 1064.

Validity, Construction, and Application of Statutes Directly Proscribing Driving with Blood-alcohol Level in Excess of Established Percentage, 54 ALR4th 149.

What Constitutes Driving, Operating, or Being in Control of Motor Vehicle for Purposes of Driving While Intoxicated Statutes, 93 ALR3d 7.

Texts:

Kuwatch, California Drunk Driving Law (Fast Eddie Publishing Co., 2000).

Taylor, Drunk Driving Defense (Little, Brown and Company, 1991).

Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (West, 15th ed. 1997) § 3:12, pp. 173-81.

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

VOLUME 18 - CHAPTER 305

See also NCJIC Research Notes 305.14.2 [Necessity].

A Coercion Defense for the Street Gang Criminal: Plugging the Moral Gap in Existing Law, 10 ND J. L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y 137, 180 (1996).

"Choice of Evils," Necessity, Duress, or Similar Defense to State or Local Criminal Charges Based on Acts of Public Protest, 3 ALR5th 521.

Coercion, Compulsion, or Duress as Defense to Charge of Robbery, Larceny, or Related Crime, 1 ALR4th 481.

Coercion, Compulsion, or Duress as Defense to Criminal Prosecution, 40 ALR2d 908.

Downward Adjustment and the Slippery Slope: The Use of Duress In Defense of Battered Offenders, L.K. Dore, 56 Ohio St. L.J. 665-773 1995.

Duress: A Philosophical Account of the Defense in Law. C. O. Finkelstein, 37 Ariz. L. Rev. 251-83 Spring 1995.

Duress and Provocation as Excuses to Murder: Salutary Lessons From Recent Anglo-American Jurisprudence. A. Reed, 6 J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y 51-92 Fall 1996.

ESSAY: Law in the Heart of Darkness: Atrocity & Duress, 43 Va. J. Int'l L. 861 (2003).

Exegesis On the Law of Duress: Justifying the Excuse and Searching for its Proper Limits, Dressler, 62 SO Cal.Rev. 1331, (1989).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Compulsion, Duress, Necessity, or "Hostage Syndrome" Defense, 8 ALR5th 713.

Reconceptualizing Necessity and Duress, Bayles, 33 Wayne L.Rev. 1191, (1987).

Rutkowski, "A Coercion Defense For The Street Gang Criminal: Plugging The Moral Gap in Existing Law," 10 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 137, 194-95 (1996).

Texts:

LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) §§ 5.3, 5.4.

Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (1999 Pocket Part) § 177 pp. 347-372.

Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (West, 15th Ed. 1997) § 2:21, p. 120.

Wharton’s Criminal Law (15th Ed. 1993) §§ 52., 90.