Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
Duplicity: Roots of the Rule Requiring Juror Unanimity as to each Discrete Offense Shown by the Evidence
By Thomas Lundy
Jury Instruction columns.
— Part One
Because the question of specific juror unanimity/duplicity continues to surface on a regular basis, the “Jury Instruction Corner” will cover this issue in a three-part series. This month’s article addresses the constitutional and common law roots of the jury unanimity doctrine. Part Two will discuss the complex question of which evidentiary situations require juror unanimity as to specific acts, theories, or offenses. Part Three will provide specific cases and instructions to illustrate the situations in which the issue may arise.
Advice to Trial Judges
In 2001, California Appellate Justice Sims made the following “request” in a short-lived concurring opinion: I concur in the majority opinion.
I write separately to say that I am completely dumbfounded by the continuing failure of our trial courts to give the standard jury instruction requiring jury unanimity. (CALJIC No. 17.01.)
* * *
I do not understand what it is about CALJIC No. 17.01 that causes trial judges not to give it. It
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or firstname.lastname@example.org
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.