the necessity of evidentiary proof. (United (9th Cir. 1999) 176 States v. Sanchez F.3d 1214, 1224-1225.) Other improper prosecution arguments trivializing reasonable doubt can be found in: (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 745 (in voir dire and without People v. Medina objection, prosecutor used a chart with two lines, one representing 100% certainty and one underneath representing proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the court noted problems with this undoubtedly would attend a prosecutor's attempt to – “perils reduce the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a mere line on a graph or chart” but held no misconduct” because later instructions would have “prejudicial cleared it up); (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 865, 872 (DA used rough People v. Otero and partially incorrect map of California to explain reasonable doubt, with the statement: with incomplete and incorrect information, no reasonable doubt “‘Even that this is California.’”); (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1260, People v. Katzenberger 1268 (DA pulled two pieces out of an eight piece puzzle and argued that because the picture of the Statue of Liberty was discernible, that was proof beyond a reasonable doubt); (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 (error to People v. Mesa argue that if the jury couldn’t convict based on fingerprint evidence, the police were wasting their time, and unless the defendant explained the print’s presence, know he's guilty”); (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976, People v. Johnson “you’ll (the court proof beyond a reasonable doubt to everyday “equated decisionmaking in a juror’s life” and the prosecutor, taking his cues from the court’s reasonable doubt instructions, did the same in his closing argument; held
the necessity of evidentiary proof. (United States v. Sanchez (9th Cir. 1999) 176 F.3d 1214, 1224-1225.) Other improper prosecution arguments trivializing reasonable doubt can be found in: People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 745 (in voir dire and without objection, prosecutor used a chart with two lines, one representing 100% certainty and one underneath representing proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the court noted problems with this – “perils undoubtedly would attend a prosecutor's attempt to reduce the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a mere line on a graph or chart” but held no “prejudicial misconduct” because later instructions would have cleared it up); People v. Otero (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 865, 872 (DA used rough and partially incorrect map of California to explain reasonable doubt, with the statement: “‘Even with incomplete and incorrect information, no reasonable doubt that this is California.’”); People v. Katzenberger (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1268 (DA pulled two pieces out of an eight piece puzzle and argued that because the picture of the Statue of Liberty was discernible, that was proof beyond a reasonable doubt); People v. Mesa (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005 (error to argue that if the jury couldn’t convict based on fingerprint evidence, the police were wasting their time, and unless the defendant explained the print’s presence, “you’ll know he's guilty”); People v. Johnson (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976, (the court “equated proof beyond a reasonable doubt to everyday decisionmaking in a juror’s life” and the prosecutor, taking his cues from the court’s reasonable doubt instructions, did the same in his closing argument; held