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.
10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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. Gurulegreen2 sentences2000P. 24(b)(X), 12 C.R.S. (1999), requires disqualification of a juror if his or her state of mind "manifest[s] a bias for or against the defendant, or for or against the prosecution, or the acknowledgement of a previously formed or expressed opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant," unless "the court is satisfied that the juror will render an impartial verdict based solely upon the evidence and instructions of the court." If the trial court "has genuine doubt about the juror's ability to be impartial under the circumstances, it should resolve the doubt by sustaining the challen 2000Hence, we have held that "[if the trial court has genuine doubt about the juror's ability to be impartial under such circumstances, it should resolve the doubt by sustaining the challenge." Russo, 713 P.2d *461 at 362 (emphasis added); see also Morgan v. People, 624 P.2d 1331, 1332 (Colo.1981) ("A prospective juror should be exeused if 'it appears doubtful that he will be governed by the instructions of the court as to the law of the case.") (quoting Jones v. People, 23 Colo. 276, 279 , 47 P. 275 , 276 (1896)); see also People v. Gurule, 628 P.2d 99, 102-03 (Colo.1981). | 3 | 3 |
Morgan v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2000P. 24(b)(X), 12 C.R.S. (1999), requires disqualification of a juror if his or her state of mind "manifest[s] a bias for or against the defendant, or for or against the prosecution, or the acknowledgement of a previously formed or expressed opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant," unless "the court is satisfied that the juror will render an impartial verdict based solely upon the evidence and instructions of the court." If the trial court "has genuine doubt about the juror's ability to be impartial under the circumstances, it should resolve the doubt by sustaining the challen 2000Hence, we have held that "[if the trial court has genuine doubt about the juror's ability to be impartial under such circumstances, it should resolve the doubt by sustaining the challenge." Russo, 713 P.2d *461 at 362 (emphasis added); see also Morgan v. People, 624 P.2d 1331, 1332 (Colo.1981) ("A prospective juror should be exeused if 'it appears doubtful that he will be governed by the instructions of the court as to the law of the case.") (quoting Jones v. People, 23 Colo. 276, 279 , 47 P. 275 , 276 (1896)); see also People v. Gurule, 628 P.2d 99, 102-03 (Colo.1981). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Russogreen2 sentences2019Pointing to our decision in People v. Russo, 713 P.2d 356, 362 (Colo. 1986), in which we stated in part that “[i]f the trial court has genuine 4 doubt about the juror’s ability to be impartial . . . , it should resolve the doubt by sustaining the challenge,” Vigil argues that an expression of doubt as to impartiality, minus rehabilitation expressly regarding impartiality, requires the prospective juror’s dismissal for cause. 2000P. 24(b)(X), 12 C.R.S. (1999), requires disqualification of a juror if his or her state of mind "manifest[s] a bias for or against the defendant, or for or against the prosecution, or the acknowledgement of a previously formed or expressed opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant," unless "the court is satisfied that the juror will render an impartial verdict based solely upon the evidence and instructions of the court." If the trial court "has genuine doubt about the juror's ability to be impartial under the circumstances, it should resolve the doubt by sustaining the challen | 1 | 5 |
People v. Lumangreen2 sentences2012People v. Luman, 994 P.2d 432, 435 (Colo.App.1999). 2009Id.; Luman, 994 P.2d at 435 . | 1 | 3 |
Jones v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2000Hence, we have held that "[if the trial court has genuine doubt about the juror's ability to be impartial under such circumstances, it should resolve the doubt by sustaining the challenge." Russo, 713 P.2d *461 at 362 (emphasis added); see also Morgan v. People, 624 P.2d 1331, 1332 (Colo.1981) ("A prospective juror should be exeused if 'it appears doubtful that he will be governed by the instructions of the court as to the law of the case.") (quoting Jones v. People, 23 Colo. 276, 279 , 47 P. 275 , 276 (1896)); see also People v. Gurule, 628 P.2d 99, 102-03 (Colo.1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sandoval
green
1 sentence1997People v. Sandoval, supra. If the trial court has genuine doubt about the juror’s ability to be impartial, it should resolve the doubt by sustaining the challenge and excusing the juror. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Nailor v. People
green
2 sentences1986See, e.g., Gurule, 628 P.2d 99 ; Nailor v. People, 200 Colo. 30 , 612 P.2d 79 (1980). 1986See, e.g., Gurule, 628 P.2d 99 ; Nailor v. People, 200 Colo. 30 , 612 P.2d 79 (1980). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.