Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 California opinions name it 1 courts 2021–2023 21 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sánchezgreen2 sentences2021“As [People v. Sánchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411 ] explained with respect to CALJIC No. 2.92’s similarly worded instruction, the instruction does not direct the jury that ‘certainty equals accuracy.’ [Citation.] Nor does the instruction state that the jury must presume an identification is accurate if the eyewitness has expressed certainty. [Citation.] Instead, the instruction merely lists the witness’s level of certainty at the time of identification as one of 15 different factors that the jury should consider when evaluating the credibility and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. 7 The instruction 2021The instruction leaves the jury to decide whether the witness expressed a credible claim of certainty and what weight, if any, should be placed on that certainty in relation to the numerous other factors listed in CALCRIM No. 315.” (Id. at p. 657.) The Supreme Court acknowledged, however, that this version of CALCRIM No. 315 “has the potential to mislead jurors” given “the empirical research that ‘ “under most circumstances, witness confidence or certainty is not a good indicator of identification accuracy.” ’ ” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 665 .) Thus, while the defendant “failed to estab | 2 | 5 |
Cupp v. Naughtengreen1 sentence2022The instruction leaves the jury to decide whether the witness expressed a credible claim of certainty and what weight, if any, should be placed on that certainty in relation to the numerous other factors listed in CALCRIM No. 315.” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 657 .) The Supreme Court then turned to federal law, specifically, Cupp v. Naughten (1973) 414 U.S. 141, 149 (Cupp). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lemcke
green
2 sentences2023In response to the claim that CALCRIM No. 315 lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof, the Lemcke court explained that “the instruction merely lists the witness’s level of certainty at the time of identification as one of 15 different factors that the jury should consider,” and “leaves the jury to decide whether the witness expressed a credible claim of certainty and what weight, if any, should be placed on that certainty in relation to the numerous other factors.” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 657 .) The Lemcke court likewise rejected the claim that the instruction denied the defendant a 2023The instruction leaves the jury to decide whether the witness expressed a credible claim of certainty and what weight, if any, should be placed on that certainty in relation to the numerous other factors listed in CALCRIM No. 315.” (Lemcke, at p. 657.) The California Supreme Court also stated that “Although the wording of the instruction might cause some jurors to infer that certainty is generally correlative of accuracy” the defendant presented expert testimony to “combat the inference.” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 657 .) The court found this was an additional factor in finding that defe | 20 | 2021–2023 |
People v. Foster
green
2 sentences2021(Id. at pp. 647, 655, 661, quoting People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1335 .) Our Supreme Court has long held that CALCRIM No. 315 (and its predecessor, CALJIC No. 2.92) does not violate due process because it “does not direct the jury that ‘certainty equals accuracy.’ ” (Lemcke, at pp. 647, 655–657; see People v. Sánchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 462 .) Rather, “[t]he instruction leaves the jury to decide whether the witness expressed a credible claim of certainty and what weight, if any, should be placed on that certainty in relation to the numerous other factors listed in CALCRIM No. 315 2021(Id. at pp. 647, 655, 661, quoting People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1335 .) Our Supreme Court has long held that CALCRIM No. 315 (and its predecessor, CALJIC No. 2.92) does not violate due process because it “does not direct the jury that ‘certainty equals accuracy.’ ” (Lemcke, at pp. 647, 655–657; see People v. Sánchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 462 (Sánchez).) Rather, “[t]he instruction leaves the jury to decide whether the witness expressed a credible claim of certainty and what weight, if any, should be placed on that certainty in relation to the numerous other factors listed in CALCRI | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Chhoun
green
1 sentence2021Indeed, even [the defendant] acknowledges that, on its face, 3 the instruction is ‘superficially neutral.’” (Ibid.) 3 Despite finding no due process violation, the court acknowledged the instruction’s potential to mislead jurors about the relationship between certainty and accuracy and therefore used its supervisory powers to direct “trial courts to omit the certainty factor from CALCRIM No. 315 until the Judicial Council has the opportunity to consider how the language might be better worded to minimize juror confusion on this point.” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 669 .) 8 The court also n | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.