Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
- Status
Furthermore there might not be much new claims during the appeal process. Up until now we have seen
- Mistake in dismissing AEG Inc.
- Mistake in dismissing Phillips & Gongaware
- Mistake in not allowing general negligence claim
- Mistake in verdict form.
Similar arguments are expected in the appeal. They might not add other stuff
----------------------------------
and to back up what I previously said
4. What are my chances of winning on appeal?
Most appeals are not successful. For example, the California courts of appeal will reverse the judgment in civil appeals only about 20 percent of the time. An appellant in a civil case therefore has a one-in-five chance of winning, in general.
Appeals are not a second bite at the apple. This is not your opportunity to re-litigate the case. The issues on appeal are normally limited to the issues that were raised in the trial court; you cannot point to any new evidence; and the appellate courts will analyze the legal issues from a different standpoint, often giving deference to the trial judge’s rulings or the jury’s findings. Therefore, it is always a good idea to have an attorney review the record and evaluate the issues on appeal, as early as possible, to determine your chances of prevailing on appeal.
Appeals can also take a long time to resolve. The latest statistics from the Judicial Council 2007 Court Statistics Report show that the median time for a civil appeal in the California appellate courts takes 431 days, from the filing of the notice of appeal to the filing of an opinion.
http://athenaroussoslaw.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Daily_Recorder_Column_1.344161651.pdf
- Mistake in dismissing AEG Inc.
- Mistake in dismissing Phillips & Gongaware
- Mistake in not allowing general negligence claim
- Mistake in verdict form.
Similar arguments are expected in the appeal. They might not add other stuff
----------------------------------
and to back up what I previously said
4. What are my chances of winning on appeal?
Most appeals are not successful. For example, the California courts of appeal will reverse the judgment in civil appeals only about 20 percent of the time. An appellant in a civil case therefore has a one-in-five chance of winning, in general.
Appeals are not a second bite at the apple. This is not your opportunity to re-litigate the case. The issues on appeal are normally limited to the issues that were raised in the trial court; you cannot point to any new evidence; and the appellate courts will analyze the legal issues from a different standpoint, often giving deference to the trial judge’s rulings or the jury’s findings. Therefore, it is always a good idea to have an attorney review the record and evaluate the issues on appeal, as early as possible, to determine your chances of prevailing on appeal.
Appeals can also take a long time to resolve. The latest statistics from the Judicial Council 2007 Court Statistics Report show that the median time for a civil appeal in the California appellate courts takes 431 days, from the filing of the notice of appeal to the filing of an opinion.
http://athenaroussoslaw.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Daily_Recorder_Column_1.344161651.pdf
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Eventually she will make a ruling and it would be posted on the court system. Until then, it might be final or might be tentative and she might have denied or granted the request for a new trial. That sums it up. ahahaha
Eventually she will make a ruling and it would be posted on the court system. Until then, it might be final or might be tentative and she might have denied or granted the request for a new trial. That sums it up. ahahaha
Bubs;3948104 said:I was looking info about Terry Harvey, who contributed on MJ autopsy program on channel 5. It was said that he was friend of MJ, but seemingly he was more friends with Tito and Joe Jackson.
I came across an article in NOTW (rotten in hell) from July 2009.
In the article Terry said this:
"Terry also revealed that as soon as the murder inquiry is announced the Jacksons intend to SUE AEG, the promoters behind *****’s planned London O2 comeback shows, for £30million for “wrongful death”."
Here is the whole article, please be aware of that reading the full article, it makes you to want to throw upuke:
http://rashmanly.com/2009/07/20/michael-jacksons-death-to-lead-to-murder-charges-within-days/
I find it extremely alarming that only a month after Michael died, Jackson's have spoken who to sue for wrongful death, and AEG was target all along. It is just huge disgrace who much effort they put on in order to get money from AEG, but CM was practically left alone.
"Terry told how J****o’s dad tried to get Michael to go to rehab in March.
He said:
“Joe wanted to get his son cleaned up as he was so keen to do the family show deal for 2010.
“He knew he wasn’t ready for these summer shows in London. Joe called him on the phone and said to Michael, ‘Let’s get it together.
Let us help you and clean the house’.
Michael said ‘OK’ to appease his dad but he didn’t even take his words in.
By that stage he was an addict."
So if the family (Joe and this Terry guy, who claims he was going to promote the family show in 2010 --AllGood) knew MJ was an addict in MARCH why didn't they tell AEG?? Answer: b/c they wanted MJ to perform in 2010 and they wanted $$ out of him regardless so they weren't about to do anything to stop a money train. This makes me sick to read as it makes it clear that the family did nothing (if this guy is to be believed) even though they were convinced MJ was 'an addict' as early as March. The hypocrisy of then blaming AEG for not saving him when they knew more and did not take serious action themselves blows my mind. This guy says Joe tried to see MJ 3 times but couldn't get thru--what was he going to talk about? Allgood family shows?? $$? or MJ's health?
"Terry added:
“Michael had a long-term drug habit.
He was no different to a drug addict living in a crack house."
Last edited:
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
I'm suspecting if this was a clerk error. Last night case summary showed it like she finalized her decision but today they deleted that entry.
edited to add: nothing in the document system today
I'm suspecting if this was a clerk error. Last night case summary showed it like she finalized her decision but today they deleted that entry.
edited to add: nothing in the document system today
Aquarius
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 975
- Points
- 0
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Let's say they're not granted a new trial & they win the appeal, would that mean that AEG would have to pay what the Jacksons are asking?
I got so happy when I read the Judge denied a new trial that I started liking the judge. Now, it is the waiting game.
Let's say they're not granted a new trial & they win the appeal, would that mean that AEG would have to pay what the Jacksons are asking?
I got so happy when I read the Judge denied a new trial that I started liking the judge. Now, it is the waiting game.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
He is funny, pointing fingers at other media when himself posted the same
From his article:
"Their motion for a new trial filed in December included sworn statements from four of the 12 jurors saying they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form."
I thought that 2 jurors said in their affidavits that they were disappointed on deliberation process and 2 jurors said they blamed misleading verdict form?
We have to wait 24 hour after the ruling has come out in case it didn't come out after all
He is funny, pointing fingers at other media when himself posted the same
From his article:
"Their motion for a new trial filed in December included sworn statements from four of the 12 jurors saying they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form."
I thought that 2 jurors said in their affidavits that they were disappointed on deliberation process and 2 jurors said they blamed misleading verdict form?
We have to wait 24 hour after the ruling has come out in case it didn't come out after all
Last edited:
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Who cares about Blanket? Certainly not any of Michael's siblings, parents, or additional relatives.
Mneme
Proud Member
Bubs;3948104 said:
/Bubs:
But a few days after June 25. Joe Jackson said openly: "Somebody must pay for that." In my opinion this does mean that they searched an another potent money source since they knew about Michael's will and John Branca as executor and that was on June 25., 2009!
look at his article:
http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20287787_20288068,00.html
The whole family were dumbfounded about not only about the will but too about Mr. Branca's claim that the Sony/ATV catalogue will be not to sell.
And how was on the scene immediatly for helping and advising the family? Dieter Wiesner from Germany. And then the rumors were starting about murderer complott (Sony+AEG+ Branca), suddenly we could read that Paris should have said 'Daddy had to work too much for the AEG',
we could read emails from dubiose fellowers about Michael's weight, anonymous persons, called 'somebody who was there' or 'man in the dark' or TII crew members without names appeared and were talking about the inhuman AEG/Randy Phillips/Kenny Ortega; the will was falsed; and others more..
I can not proof it but I am convinced that all this were from Wiesner's muck heap.
And why? Because he had since 2007 the 50% ownership on Michael's merchandising but for TII he doesn't get the merchandising because it should made from AEG and Wiesner was outside.
He must have been full of hate against AEG and and Branca because his plans to get his hand on Michael's money were destroyed. The family would have been for him an easy victim but with Mr. Branca he would have no chance.
jamba;3948324 said:
Harvey has made a mistake. The reunion show should't be in 2010 but in summer 2009!
We know that beyond all doubt from the AllGood vs. DiLeo complaint:
15. On or about October 21, 2008 Allocco flew to Las Vegas, Nevada for a
meeting with Joe Jackson, the father of Jackson and the Jackson Family.
16. At the meeting, in which various persons attended, Allocco spoke with Joe
Jackson about his desire to promote a major concert featuring the return of Jackson
and/or a Jackson Family reunion through his company AllGood (the “Event”
.17. Joe Jackson informed Allocco that he really hoped to produce the Event, it
would be best to reach out to Dileo, because Dileo was Jackson’s then-current manager.
29. In reliance of the representations made by Dileo, AllGood and the Dileo
Defendants entered into two agreements which, as described in detail below, essentially
provide that the Dileo Defendants were the acting managers for Jackson, duly authorized
to engage Jackson for a concert performance, that AllGood would be the exclusive
producer and promoter of a Jackson and/or the Jackson Family concert on a date to be
determined, but to be scheduled sometime in the summer of 2009, and, most importantly,
that neither the Dileo Defendants nor Jackson and/or the Jackson Family would agree to
do a concert with any other person or entity at any time prior to the 2009 summer concert
and for a period of three months after said concert.
I never believed Michael was a real addict in 2009. These addict stories were spread from his birth family and their helpers for only one aim: money.
For them Michael had to be an addict because only an addicted Michael was valuable for their plans against AEG.
And this applies to the will from 2002 too. Remember how often it was spoken about an addiction in the time 2001/2002! Not only in the AEG trial but in context with the "faked will".
If Michael would have been addicted in 2009 ----- how he had could do the reunion in summer 2009???
What was his family thinking about a cure for drug addiction? Should Michael go for rehab in the morning and go to rehearsal in the evening and the next morning again in the rehab?
What nonsense.
Let us assume, Michael was an addict:
AEG had know or shouldt have known Michael was an addict?
What is with his family members? From what is said in the AEG trial under oath they all knew that Michael was an addict.
And nevertheless they wished a reunion for summer 2009?
That I would not call inconsiderateness but exploitation Michael to death.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
That People article is a bit messy. It says they had brief interview with Joe and then most of the time they quote "source".
I think that "family meeting" Joe mentioned was about who they push forward to go to court and say MJ died intestate (without the will). Obviously they pushed KJ who went to court on 29th of June and told them MJ didn't have will and she wanted to be appointed administrator of the estate.
"Michael Jackson's mom asked a judge to give her control over the estate of her late son so she can make certain the pop star's surviving children will receive what is properly theirs."
Note, in his infamous letter, Randy (as stupid as he is, accidentally) spilled that all along they were aware of Michael's will.
I believe that there were more people than just Dieter whispering their ears, and as out of everything relating MJ they were/are, they believed those people.
Have you read this: http://muzikfactorytwo.blogspot.ie/2011/05/interview-with-patrick-allocco.html
AEG should have called Patrick A to testify when plaintiffs were talking about how many tours and how much money MJ was going to make, and what KJ and Joe said to him.
Note 2. For someone who testified that she stays in the background, she was left, right and centre during Allgood deal was brokered between parties, even more than Joe.
That People article is a bit messy. It says they had brief interview with Joe and then most of the time they quote "source".
I think that "family meeting" Joe mentioned was about who they push forward to go to court and say MJ died intestate (without the will). Obviously they pushed KJ who went to court on 29th of June and told them MJ didn't have will and she wanted to be appointed administrator of the estate.
"Michael Jackson's mom asked a judge to give her control over the estate of her late son so she can make certain the pop star's surviving children will receive what is properly theirs."
Note, in his infamous letter, Randy (as stupid as he is, accidentally) spilled that all along they were aware of Michael's will.
I believe that there were more people than just Dieter whispering their ears, and as out of everything relating MJ they were/are, they believed those people.
Have you read this: http://muzikfactorytwo.blogspot.ie/2011/05/interview-with-patrick-allocco.html
AEG should have called Patrick A to testify when plaintiffs were talking about how many tours and how much money MJ was going to make, and what KJ and Joe said to him.
Note 2. For someone who testified that she stays in the background, she was left, right and centre during Allgood deal was brokered between parties, even more than Joe.
Last edited:
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
I'm reading in twitter world about why media pulled those articles back about judges ruling.
Could it be that plaintiffs haven't got a statement ready to go with article, and plaintiffs needs to have read it first before ruling is published?
I'm reading in twitter world about why media pulled those articles back about judges ruling.
Could it be that plaintiffs haven't got a statement ready to go with article, and plaintiffs needs to have read it first before ruling is published?
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
More and more I'm thinking this was a clerk error. 2 nights ago when I checked case summary section showed that Judge finalized the decision. The next morning media run with that story but in an hour edited to say that it wasn't finalized. The proceeding information that said the judge finalized the ruling has also been deleted from case summary.
anyway I believe she has until friday to make her ruling so soon we will know what she has decided.
More and more I'm thinking this was a clerk error. 2 nights ago when I checked case summary section showed that Judge finalized the decision. The next morning media run with that story but in an hour edited to say that it wasn't finalized. The proceeding information that said the judge finalized the ruling has also been deleted from case summary.
anyway I believe she has until friday to make her ruling so soon we will know what she has decided.
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
It sure would be nice to get the activities re Allgood in a courtroom and put some people under oath, but I can see why AEG didn't want to go there b/c they would have to confront Katherine Jackson, the grieving mother, and that could have been very difficult b/c the plaintiffs were orchestrating the emotional elements so heavily and portraying her in a light that meant she was a hard nut to crack. TJ also referred to her as the 'CEO" and the "queen"--there was a huge deference to her on both sides. I guess they could have circumvented it by calling Allocco to the stand and having him testify, but maybe that was risky too, as the plaintiffs could put KJ up there and she could have denied it or it could have given her an opportunity to say--what they have said before--that they favored Allgood over AEG b/c Allgood meant MJ would do fewer shows and they didn't think he could do 50 shows. Maybe it was opening a can of worms from AEG's perspective.
I agree I would love to see the whole thing brought up in a court, though.
Re the will--what I read was that Branca was on vacation when MJ died and had a phone conversation with the family (Randy?) right away to let them know that there was a will and when he got back to LA in a couple of days (the next week) he would meet with them to discuss it. But they filed on Monday for KJ to be executor, stating there was no will, before they met with Branca. Not cool.
It sure would be nice to get the activities re Allgood in a courtroom and put some people under oath, but I can see why AEG didn't want to go there b/c they would have to confront Katherine Jackson, the grieving mother, and that could have been very difficult b/c the plaintiffs were orchestrating the emotional elements so heavily and portraying her in a light that meant she was a hard nut to crack. TJ also referred to her as the 'CEO" and the "queen"--there was a huge deference to her on both sides. I guess they could have circumvented it by calling Allocco to the stand and having him testify, but maybe that was risky too, as the plaintiffs could put KJ up there and she could have denied it or it could have given her an opportunity to say--what they have said before--that they favored Allgood over AEG b/c Allgood meant MJ would do fewer shows and they didn't think he could do 50 shows. Maybe it was opening a can of worms from AEG's perspective.
I agree I would love to see the whole thing brought up in a court, though.
Re the will--what I read was that Branca was on vacation when MJ died and had a phone conversation with the family (Randy?) right away to let them know that there was a will and when he got back to LA in a couple of days (the next week) he would meet with them to discuss it. But they filed on Monday for KJ to be executor, stating there was no will, before they met with Branca. Not cool.
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Document system gets updated by 5 PM so nothing in the document system. Case summary gets updated at midnight. So it looks like she would finalize the decision tomorrow. Given the weekend it might take some time to get it next week.
edited to add : correction. When I wrote the above section I was thinking the judge needs to make her decision by tomorrow but actually she has until monday. So she might not finalize her decision on Friday.
Document system gets updated by 5 PM so nothing in the document system. Case summary gets updated at midnight. So it looks like she would finalize the decision tomorrow. Given the weekend it might take some time to get it next week.
edited to add : correction. When I wrote the above section I was thinking the judge needs to make her decision by tomorrow but actually she has until monday. So she might not finalize her decision on Friday.
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Here we go again
01/10/2014 at 01:30 pm in Department 28, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Presiding
Court Order - Completed
01/03/2014 at 08:45 am in Department 28, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Presiding
Motion for New Trial - Submitted
Here we go again
01/10/2014 at 01:30 pm in Department 28, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Presiding
Court Order - Completed
01/03/2014 at 08:45 am in Department 28, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Presiding
Motion for New Trial - Submitted
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
It seems to be in but no news have been posted about it:-(
Ivy, where did you get that info?
I went here: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/casesummary.aspx?CT=CI and scrolled down to Documents Filed, but there isn't that info what you posted?
Is it in different court system or where do I go wrong?
It seems to be in but no news have been posted about it:-(
Ivy, where did you get that info?
I went here: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/casesummary.aspx?CT=CI and scrolled down to Documents Filed, but there isn't that info what you posted?
Is it in different court system or where do I go wrong?
Last edited:
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
^^
Scroll down to proceeding information, that's where I get it from
keep in mind last time they were wrong, caused a confusion and had to delete it.
document system did not show the ruling which is expected as scanning takes time - at least a day or more. Given that it is weekend, I would assume that only the lawyers know about judge's ruling - if she indeed finalized it. Media seems to be in contact with lawyers so who knows, perhaps they'll report it over the weekend or next week.
^^
Scroll down to proceeding information, that's where I get it from
keep in mind last time they were wrong, caused a confusion and had to delete it.
document system did not show the ruling which is expected as scanning takes time - at least a day or more. Given that it is weekend, I would assume that only the lawyers know about judge's ruling - if she indeed finalized it. Media seems to be in contact with lawyers so who knows, perhaps they'll report it over the weekend or next week.
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Maybe if the lawyers know and we have no news from family side yet, then the answer is no. I am thinking that if it was yes for the family, Panish or someone on that side would have disclosed it already. I see they did not use Mann to leak the results to the public.
Maybe if the lawyers know and we have no news from family side yet, then the answer is no. I am thinking that if it was yes for the family, Panish or someone on that side would have disclosed it already. I see they did not use Mann to leak the results to the public.
Mneme
Proud Member
Bubs;3948104 said:
Bubs;3948447 said:
Bubs, we are off topic and I would not be surprised if our postings will be removed from the Admin...
Therefore I hope you can read my short reply before that will happen:
I do not know why you come with this muzikfactory interwiew? These events were before Michael's dead.
Imo that interview with Allocco is biased against Frank DiLeo. It was done in 2010 and published 2011.
2010 there was the complaint Allocco vs. DiLeo not yet ended and also in May 2011 because Allocco lost his claim and was in appeal.
Therefore Allocco's description is (or better: must be) euphemistic with regard to himself and to Mrs. Jackson but bas to Frank DiLeo.
And the interviewer is giving him the opportunity for that:
Right in the middle he/she asks: "Why didn't you call DiLeo on his lie by letting TMZ know that DiLeo team were involved in this fake tribute?"
His answer.... read it yourself; he makes an explantation and he explains nothing with it.
We know that not only this alleged tribute was a fake but the letter what was sent to TMZ was a fake too.
But why is this story in the AllGood/muzikfactory interview still in the publishing from 2010?
Further.... I read in the interview Terry Harvey, who contributed on MJ autopsy program on channel 5, was partner with Allgood in the reunion matter. He is a "long-time friend" from Joe & Katherine Jackson. What a coincidence!
And to the rhight time on May 13, 2013 there was a long article in the british newspaper 'mirror' with him for supporting Mrs. Jackson in her AEG suit.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/michael-jackson-could-not-sing-1886104
True friendship is never ending.
Something I found in regards to BAJI vs CACI
What is CACI?
CACI (Pronounced "Kay See") is the name of the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, the official civil jury instructions and verdict forms approved by the council on July 16, 2003. "CACI" means "California Civil Instructions."
Are the CACI mandatory?
The Judicial Council has not mandated use of CACI to the exclusion of other jury instructions. However, under rule (2.1050) of the California Rules of Court, the CACI instructions are designated as the “official instructions for use in the state of California.” The rule further states that use of the new instructions is “strongly encouraged” and they are recommended for use unless a judge “finds that a different instruction would more accurately state the law and be understood by jurors.” Rule (2.1050(a)(e).) So CACI instructions are clearly preferred, and there is an affirmative burden to make a legal case for using a non-CACI instruction if there is a CACI instruction on the subject.
Can special instructions still be proposed?
Special instructions may be proposed under Code of Civil Procedure § 609, but they must conform to the format requirements of rule (2.1055). If there is no CACI instruction on a subject on which the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed, or if a CACI instruction cannot be modified to submit the issue properly, another instruction may be given on that subject. The instruction should be accurate, brief, understandable, impartial, and free from argument. Rule (2.1050(e).)
Why did the Judicial Council authorize drafting new plain English jury instructions?
In 1996 the Blue Ribbon Commission on Jury System Improvement concluded "jury instructions as presently given in California and elsewhere are, on occasion, simply impenetrable to the ordinary juror." The commission recommended that jury instructions be redrafted in more understandable language. In response, the Judicial Council created the Task Force on Jury Instructions in 1997, and directed that it draft comprehensive, legally accurate jury instructions that are readily understood by the average juror.
Does CACI change the law in California?
No, the CACI instructions do not change the law. In drafting the new instructions, the Task Force was charged with accurately stating existing law in a way that is understandable to the average juror. The articulation and interpretation of California law remains within the purview of the Legislature and courts of review. Rule (2.1050(b).)
What is the status of BAJI?
BAJI no longer is officially approved by state court rules. Los Angeles Superior Court's BAJI Committee has disbanded. The Thomson-West company, who owns the BAJI copyright, continues to publish and update BAJI.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/315.htm
What is CACI?
CACI (Pronounced "Kay See") is the name of the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, the official civil jury instructions and verdict forms approved by the council on July 16, 2003. "CACI" means "California Civil Instructions."
Are the CACI mandatory?
The Judicial Council has not mandated use of CACI to the exclusion of other jury instructions. However, under rule (2.1050) of the California Rules of Court, the CACI instructions are designated as the “official instructions for use in the state of California.” The rule further states that use of the new instructions is “strongly encouraged” and they are recommended for use unless a judge “finds that a different instruction would more accurately state the law and be understood by jurors.” Rule (2.1050(a)(e).) So CACI instructions are clearly preferred, and there is an affirmative burden to make a legal case for using a non-CACI instruction if there is a CACI instruction on the subject.
Can special instructions still be proposed?
Special instructions may be proposed under Code of Civil Procedure § 609, but they must conform to the format requirements of rule (2.1055). If there is no CACI instruction on a subject on which the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed, or if a CACI instruction cannot be modified to submit the issue properly, another instruction may be given on that subject. The instruction should be accurate, brief, understandable, impartial, and free from argument. Rule (2.1050(e).)
Why did the Judicial Council authorize drafting new plain English jury instructions?
In 1996 the Blue Ribbon Commission on Jury System Improvement concluded "jury instructions as presently given in California and elsewhere are, on occasion, simply impenetrable to the ordinary juror." The commission recommended that jury instructions be redrafted in more understandable language. In response, the Judicial Council created the Task Force on Jury Instructions in 1997, and directed that it draft comprehensive, legally accurate jury instructions that are readily understood by the average juror.
Does CACI change the law in California?
No, the CACI instructions do not change the law. In drafting the new instructions, the Task Force was charged with accurately stating existing law in a way that is understandable to the average juror. The articulation and interpretation of California law remains within the purview of the Legislature and courts of review. Rule (2.1050(b).)
What is the status of BAJI?
BAJI no longer is officially approved by state court rules. Los Angeles Superior Court's BAJI Committee has disbanded. The Thomson-West company, who owns the BAJI copyright, continues to publish and update BAJI.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/315.htm
- Status