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 1 courts 2010–2015 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. Doolingreen2 sentences2015Standard of review Generally, "[w]e review the denial of a motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard." (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) The Cox court explained that "'"[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mis 2015Standard of review Generally, "[w]e review the denial of a motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard." (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) The Cox court explained that "'"[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mis | 3 | 3 |
People v. Aultgreen2 sentences2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su 2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lokergreen2 sentences2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su 2010(People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653.) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the “extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror.” (In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, supra, at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, at p. 303 .) Even when the extraneous information is not so prejudicial, in and of itself, as to cause inherent bias, under the circumstantial bias test the court must examine the totali | 2 | 2 |
In Re Carpentergreen2 sentences2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su 2010(People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653.) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the “extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror.” (In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, supra, at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, at p. 303 .) Even when the extraneous information is not so prejudicial, in and of itself, as to cause inherent bias, under the circumstantial bias test the court must examine the totali | 2 | 2 |
People v. Neslergreen2 sentences2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su 2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su | 1 | 2 |
People v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su 2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su | 1 | 1 |
In Re Malonegreen2 sentences2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su 2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su | 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. Cissna
green
2 sentences2015If the system is to function at all, we must tolerate a certain amount of imperfection short of actual bias.'" (Ibid., italics added.) In People v. Cissna (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cissna), this court explained that "[w]hen . . . juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can be inherent or circumstantial. [Citations.] Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the 'extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror.' [Citations.] Even when the extraneous information is not so 2015If the system is to function at all, we must tolerate a certain amount of imperfection short of actual bias.'" (Ibid., italics added.) In People v. Cissna (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cissna), this court explained that "[w]hen . . . juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can be inherent or circumstantial. [Citations.] Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the 'extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror.' [Citations.] Even when the extraneous information is not so | 4 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Cox
green
2 sentences2015Standard of review Generally, "[w]e review the denial of a motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard." (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) The Cox court explained that "'"[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mis 2015Standard of review Generally, "[w]e review the denial of a motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard." (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) The Cox court explained that "'"[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mis | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Holloway
green
2 sentences2013This is particularly so when the misconduct is discovered after the verdict because there is no opportunity for the court to take corrective steps through admonition or other measures. ( Holloway, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 1111-1112.) The inherent bias test, as described in Marshall and Holloway, is reasonable, understandable and sufficient to identify reversible prejudice. 2013This is particularly so when the misconduct is discovered after the verdict because there is no opportunity for the court to take corrective steps through admonition or other measures. ( Holloway, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 1111-1112.) The inherent bias test, as described in Marshall and Holloway, is reasonable, understandable and sufficient to identify reversible prejudice. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Danks
green
2 sentences2010(See People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 580 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ].) When, as here, juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information, juror bias can bein herent or circumstantial. ( People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653 .) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the "extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror." ( In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, su 2010(People v. Loker, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 303 ; In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 653.) Under the inherent bias test, the court considers whether the “extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and substantially likely to have influenced the juror.” (In re Carpenter, supra, at p. 653 ; see People v. Loker, supra, at p. 747; People v. Danks, supra, at p. 303 .) Even when the extraneous information is not so prejudicial, in and of itself, as to cause inherent bias, under the circumstantial bias test the court must examine the totali | 2 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Hamilton
green
1 sentence2014Standard of review On appeal from a ruling denying a new trial motion based on a claim the defendant was prejudiced by a juror's misconduct or "exposure to events outside the trial evidence" ( Hamilton, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 294-295), "we defer to the trial court's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence, and exercise our independent judgment on the issue of whether prejudice arose from the misconduct (i.e., whether there is a substantial likelihood of inherent and/or circumstantial juror bias)." (Cissna, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117 , citing People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Ca | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.