Legal Opinion

People v. Lavender

California Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 2014No. S209975PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

Jurors, like all human beings, are imperfect. It follows that jury deliberations may also be imperfect. A single juror may fail to recollect some bit of testimony. Some jurors may forget or misapply one of the instructions. Others may focus tenaciously but unreasonably on one aspect of the record to the exclusion of the rest. Through the give and take of deliberations, however, the jury’s collective memory and common sense will often correct these types of errors and lead to a result that surpasses in wisdom the understanding of any one person.

In this case, the parties agree…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Herring v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Rushen v. SpainSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. People v. AvilaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Krouse v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Richard Adams Hovey v. Robert L. Ayers, Jr., Acting Warden, California State Prison at San QuentinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. People v. Alaniz, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  2. People v. Hem, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  3. People v. Solorio, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  4. (HC) Moore v. FrauenheimDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019
  5. Norholm v. Cirovic CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2021

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API