In what circumstances will the court allow a prosecutor to argue that a jury must "accept and reject the reasonable and the unreasonable" evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bernal, E064221 (Cal. App. 2017):
In People v. Romero (2008) 44 Cal.4th 386, the court approved the prosecutor's argument that the jury must "'decide what is reasonable to believe versus unreasonable to believe' and to 'accept the reasonable and reject the unreasonable.'" (Id. at p. 416.) It concluded "[n]othing in [that] explanation lessened the prosecution's burden of proof. The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond an unreasonable doubt." (Ibid.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
Other Questions
In what circumstances will a defendant be able to argue that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony about two prior convictions subject to the conditions the court imposed? (California, United States of America)
Does defendant have any grounds to argue that the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that a prosecutor improperly admitted evidence of sexual assault under section 352(b) of the California Evidence Code? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances have the courts reversed a jury's verdict in a criminal case where the prosecutor argued to the jury that the burden of proving was reasonable? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances have the courts allowed the prosecution to argue that the evidence against the accused has not been retested? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a prosecutor be allowed to argue that defense counsel's assessment of the evidence is absurd? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted comments made by a prosecutor in a civil case where the prosecutor suggested that the prosecutor's theories were not the exclusive theories that may be considered by the court? (California, United States of America)
Does a competent, unconflicted counsel who submitted on the evidence at the preliminary hearing, should have argued to the trial court that this evidence did not establish the lawful duty element beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances of the crime scene evidence will be admitted during the penalty phase of a penalty trial, does the trial court error not to exclude the evidence? (California, United States of America)
Is it error for a prosecutor to suggest that a reasonable account of the evidence satisfies the prosecutor's burden of proof? (California, United States of America)
