California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Potts, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 436 P.3d 899, 6 Cal.5th 1012 (Cal. 2019):
Defendant also argues that the instruction was flawed because it "stated a need for a collective finding" of doubt, notwithstanding his "right to each juror's individual judgment." We have acknowledged that, viewed in isolation, the instruction's focus on whether "you unanimously agree that you have a reasonable doubt" ( CALJIC No. 8.71 (6th ed. 1996)) "carr[ies] at least some potential for confusing jurors about the role of their individual judgments" ( People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 386, 411, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 280, 247 P.3d 515 ; id. , at pp. 409-412, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 280, 247 P.3d 515 ). Viewing the instructions as a whole, however, there
[245 Cal.Rptr.3d 35]
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.