California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Boyette, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 29 Cal.4th 381, 58 P.3d 391 (Cal. 2002):
This exchange demonstrates that the prosecutor was not relying on any expert testimony but was arguing that the facts of the crime showed an absence of remorse and, from that absence, the jury could infer defendant was a threat to kill again. This was permissible argument. (People v. Ervin, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 99, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 990 P.2d 506.)
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.