California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Thomas, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1656, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1966, 247 P.3d 886, 51 Cal.4th 449 (Cal. 2011):
It was improper for the prosecutor to argue to the jury that defendant could be released on parole if it did not find the special circumstances allegation true. The prosecutor in People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d 436, 208 Cal.Rptr. 547, 690 P.2d 1207 argued to the jury that if it did not find that the defendant murdered the victim during the commission of a robbery it just guaranteed [the defendant] a parole date. ( Id. at p. 457, fn. 14, 208 Cal.Rptr. 547, 690 P.2d 1207, italics omitted.) We held: A defendant's possible punishment is not a proper matter for jury consideration. [Citation.] [T]he jury is not allowed to weigh the possibility of parole or pardon in determining the guilt of the defendant.... [Citation.] ( Id. at p. 458, 208 Cal.Rptr. 547, 690 P.2d 1207.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.