People v. Carasi

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Capital Defense Weekly, September 1, 2008

    Capital Defense NewsletterAugust 31, 2008

    [viaElectric Lawyer] " In a death penalty case, conviction and sentence are affirmed on automatic appeal over claims of error regarding: 1) evidence admitted at trial regarding prior uncharged crimes; 2) sufficiency of the evidence of first degree felony murder and the robbery special circumstance; 3) a jury instruction on evidence of other crimes; 4) sufficiency of evidence of the hate-murder special circumstance; 5) prejudice caused by expert evidence regarding white supremacy; 6) the constitutionality of jury instructions on the death penalty; 7) the court's failure to clarify the meaning of "life without the possibility of parole"; 8) the constitutionality of the death penalty statute; and 9) cumulative error. " [via Findlaw]People v. Paul Joe Carasi, 2008 Cal. LEXIS 10355 (Cal 8/25/2008) "Even though court would not allow case-specific questions in questionnaire, it informed jurors about about specific facts and charges, and several jurors said they took those into consideration. Therefore, court's procedures were adequate to ascertain attitudes on case-specific factors."

  2. Capital Defense Weekly, August 25, 2008

    Capital Defense NewsletterAugust 24, 2008

    " [viaElectric Lawyer] " In a death penalty case, conviction and sentence are affirmed on automatic appeal over claims of error regarding: 1) evidence admitted at trial regarding prior uncharged crimes; 2) sufficiency of the evidence of first degree felony murder and the robbery special circumstance; 3) a jury instruction on evidence of other crimes; 4) sufficiency of evidence of the hate-murder special circumstance; 5) prejudice caused by expert evidence regarding white supremacy; 6) the constitutionality of jury instructions on the death penalty; 7) the court's failure to clarify the meaning of "life without the possibility of parole"; 8) the constitutionality of the death penalty statute; and 9) cumulative error. " [via Findlaw]People v. Paul Joe Carasi, 2008 Cal. LEXIS 10355 (Cal 8/25/2008) "Even though court would not allow case-specific questions in questionnair, it informed jurors about about specific facts and charges, and several jurors said they took those into consideration. Therefore, court's procedures were adequate to ascertain attitudes on case-specific factors.