Legal Info - Self Help - for Informational Purposes

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 22

Petitioners were convicted following a California state criminal trial during which the prosecutor, as then permitted by a state constitutional provision, extensively commented on their failure to testify. The trial judge also charged the jury that it could draw adverse inferences from such failure. After the trial, but before petitioners' appeal was considered, the state constitutional provision was invalidated by Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609. Though admitting that petitioners had been denied a federal constitutional right, the California Supreme Court, applying the State Constitution's harmless error provision, upheld the convictions.

Full Decision:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/386/18/ #:~:text=Held%3A,Pp.

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) Chapman v. California

2. California Evidence Rules on Witnesses

Witness testimony is obviously an important form of evidence in California criminal trials. As such, witness testimony is governed by several important California evidence rules.

2.1. Witness competence

A person may not serve as a witness in a California criminal trial if she/he is either
1. Incapable of expressing him/herself so as to be understandable by the jury, or
2. Incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.

Example: The prosecution in a criminal case calls as a witness a criminal associate of the defendant—who has successfully argued that he is not competent to stand trial in his own criminal case. The defendant’s criminal defense lawyer objects to the admission of this witness’s testimony, arguing that he is not capable of understanding his duty to tell the truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Lay witnesses

In addition, under California evidence rules, a witness must be qualified to testify about the matter on which she/he will be testifying.

For most witnesses—known as “lay witnesses”—this means that she/he must have personal knowledge of the matter.

Lay witnesses typically testify about facts. If a lay witness issues an opinion on something in the case, that opinion is admissible California evidence only if it is:

1. Rationally based on his/her perceptions, and
2. Helpful to a clear understanding of his/her testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Expert witnesses

In addition to lay witnesses, the parties in a California criminal trial often call so-called “expert witnesses” to testify. Expert witnesses are people who have special knowledge, skills, experience, or education that enables them to offer their opinion on matters related to the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------

2. California Evidence Rules on Witnesses

Under the California evidence rules, expert witnesses can offer their opinion only on subjects that are far enough beyond common experience that an expert opinion would be helpful to the jury members.

Example: Keisha is on trial for Penal Code 192(a) PC voluntary manslaughter for killing her husband. She and her criminal defense attorney are asserting the killing was a justifiable homicide under California self-defense laws.

Keisha's self-defense argument rests in part on the theory that she was afraid of her abusive husband and she suffered from the psychological condition known as “battered woman’s syndrome.”
Because most members of the jury probably do not understand the scientific basis of battered woman’s syndrome, Keisha and her attorney call a psychologist as an expert witness to explain the syndrome, and testify that he believes Keisha suffered from it.
--------------------------------------------------------------

2.2. Examination of witnesses

Witnesses in a criminal jury trial will be examined by the attorneys for both sides in a particular order set out in the California evidence rules.

First, every witness called by a side will be questioned by the lawyer for that side. This is what is known as “direct examination.”

Second, the other side will then question that same witness. This is what is known as “cross-examination.” The cross-examination may only be about matters that were touched upon in the direct examination.

Third, the side that called and initially examined the witness may examine him/her again in what is known as a “redirect examination.”

Finally, the other side can question the witness a final time in a “recross-examination.”

Example: Let’s return to the example of Keisha from above. Her defense team calls a psychologist named Dr. Cassis to testify about what battered woman’s syndrome is and to offer his opinion that Keisha suffers from it.

When Dr. Cassis first takes the stand, he is questioned by Keisha’s defense lawyer; this is the “direct examination” of Dr. Cassis. Next, the prosecutor will conduct the “cross-examination” of Dr. Cassis. The prosecutor may only ask questions relating to the matters Dr. Cassis testified about under direct examination.

After that, Keisha’s attorney takes over once again for the redirect examination. Finally, the prosecutor is able to question Dr. Cassis a final time in the recross-examination.

On direct and redirect examination of witnesses, the lawyer is not allowed to ask what are known as “leading questions.”

A “leading question” is a question that suggests to the witness the answer that the party asking the question wants to hear.

However, leading questions are permitted on cross-examination and recross-examination.

Example: In his direct examination of Dr. Cassis, Keisha’s lawyer asks him, “So you feel that Keisha suffers from battered woman’s syndrome?”

This is a leading question. The prosecutor objects. Keisha’s lawyer then has to rephrase the question as, “Do you think Keisha suffers from battered woman’s syndrome?”

Then, on cross-examination, the prosecutor asks Dr. Cassis, “It sounds as if Keisha does not display some of the classic symptoms of battered woman’s syndrome. Is that correct?” This is a leading question—but it is permitted because it is asked on cross-examination.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

2.3. Impeachment of witnesses

It is common in California criminal trials for one side to challenge the credibility of the witnesses for the other side. This is known as “impeachment of witnesses,” and there are particular California evidence rules that govern it.

Some of the factors that can be used to impeach a witness’s credibility are:

• His/her demeanor while testifying,
• His/her capacity to perceive or recollect what s/he is testifying about,
• His/her character for honesty or dishonesty,
• Any bias, interest, or other motive s/he may have connected to the outcome of the case, and
• Prior statements s/he made that are inconsistent with his/her testimony.

In addition, if the witness has a prior conviction for a felony, that fact may be used to impeach his/her testimony.
But factors that may not be used to impeach a witness’s credibility include:

• His/her religious belief or lack thereof, and
• Evidence about aspects of his/her character other than honesty or dishonesty.