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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2020 0 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. Holtgreen2 sentences2015He points out that in People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 661 , our Supreme Court stated that “[t]rial court judges should closely follow the language and formulae for voir dire recommended by the Judicial Council in the Standards to ensure that all appropriate areas of inquiry are covered in an appropriate manner.” (Ibid.; Mello, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 516 .) But section 4.30 of the Standards of Judicial Administration does not strictly limit a trial court to the questions contained therein; it states that the “trial judge’s examination of prospective jurors in criminal cases should in 2004(People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 661 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782 , 937 P.2d 213 ].) We agree that many of the areas of inquiry proposed for the first time in defendant’s appellate briefs, if reduced to questions on voir dire, might have assisted defense counsel in exercising challenges. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Danielsgreen2 sentences2005(See People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 882-883 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 122 , 802 P.2d 906 ].) The trial court did not preclude Park from testifying, nor unduly restrict the areas of inquiry pertaining to his proposed testimony, but instead simply made clear that if the defense offered evidence of defendant’s character related to the likelihood of his adjustment to life in prison, the prosecution would be entitled to cross-examine the witness and seek to rebut his testimony. 2005(See People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 882-883 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 122 , 802 P.2d 906 ].) The trial court did not preclude Park from testifying, nor unduly restrict the areas of inquiry pertaining to his proposed testimony, but instead simply made clear that if the defense offered evidence of defendant’s character related to the likelihood of his adjustment to life in prison, the prosecution would be entitled to cross-examine the witness and seek to rebut his testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Mu'Min v. Virginiagreen2 sentences2004But, as the high court observed in Mu’Min v. Virginia (1991) 500 U.S. 415, 425-426 [ 114 L.Ed.2d 493 , 111 S.Ct. 1899 ], “to be constitutionally compelled, ... it is not enough that such questions be helpful. 2004But, as the high court observed in Mu’Min v. Virginia (1991) 500 U.S. 415, 425-426 [ 114 L.Ed.2d 493 , 111 S.Ct. 1899 ], “to be constitutionally compelled, ... it is not enough that such questions be helpful. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 795332
green
1 sentence2020Indeed, in marked contrast to the line of cases on which petitioner relies, the circuit court panel in Bass v. County of Butte (9th Cir. 2006) 458 F.3d 978 (Bass), undertook a thorough examination of each of the areas of inquiry as to which the analyses in the other cases are profoundly deficient. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Mello
green
2 sentences2015He points out that in People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 661 , our Supreme Court stated that “[t]rial court judges should closely follow the language and formulae for voir dire recommended by the Judicial Council in the Standards to ensure that all appropriate areas of inquiry are covered in an appropriate manner.” (Ibid.; Mello, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 516 .) But section 4.30 of the Standards of Judicial Administration does not strictly limit a trial court to the questions contained therein; it states that the “trial judge’s examination of prospective jurors in criminal cases should in 2015He points out that in People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 661 , our Supreme Court stated that “[t]rial court judges should closely follow the language and formulae for voir dire recommended by the Judicial Council in the Standards to ensure that all appropriate areas of inquiry are covered in an appropriate manner.” (Ibid.; Mello, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 516 .) But section 4.30 of the Standards of Judicial Administration does not strictly limit a trial court to the questions contained therein; it states that the “trial judge’s examination of prospective jurors in criminal cases should in | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Whalen
green
1 sentence2015He points out that in People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 661 , our Supreme Court stated that “[t]rial court judges should closely follow the language and formulae for voir dire recommended by the Judicial Council in the Standards to ensure that all appropriate areas of inquiry are covered in an appropriate manner.” (Ibid.; Mello, supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 516 .) But section 4.30 of the Standards of Judicial Administration does not strictly limit a trial court to the questions contained therein; it states that the “trial judge’s examination of prospective jurors in criminal cases should in | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Boyette
green
1 sentence2013The juror asked four questions: „How can a homeless person obtain such private lawyer[s] or are the [defense attorneys] court appointed? [¶] [Regarding] the neighbor who lived 4 houses up the street[,] describe the size of the person he saw standing in the street or over (near) the body (sml, med, lrg) short or tall. [¶] [Is t]his blind person being tried also or what[?] [¶] Did the person on trial [take,] or is he willing to take[,] a lie detector test[?]‟ ” (People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 429 , fn. omitted.) 8 relate to one of the areas of inquiry that is spelled out by the Supre | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2008I haven’t changed one bit, your honor.” 9 *276 At this hearing the trial court again discussed at length with defendant the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and the prosecutor again mentioned the areas of inquiry set forth in Lopez, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d 568 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Horton
green
2 sentences2003(Cf. People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1093 , 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 , 906 P.2d 478 .) Furthermore, the court allowed a 31-page juror questionnaire that sufficiently covered the areas of inquiry defendant now claims he was unable to pursue. 2003(Cf. People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1093 , 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 , 906 P.2d 478 .) Furthermore, the court allowed a 31-page juror questionnaire that sufficiently covered the areas of inquiry defendant now claims he was unable to pursue. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.