Cited by

Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618-19 (1976); (citations omitted).

The rational basis test applies to statutes that “do not affect the fundamental right to [sue] but merely regulate it.”

rosecutor commented on Hudson’s request for an attorney, “essentially vouching for the Detective and his method of interviewing,” and the prosecutor “used Hudson’s statements to establish [Hudson’s mens rea] in her closing.” ¶13 It is well established that “a prosecutor may not comment on a defendant's post-arrest, post-Miranda warnings silence as evidence of guilt.” 8 A prosecutor may, however, “comment on a defendant's post-Miranda warning statements ‘because a defendant who voluntarily speaks

A person is in custody when he is under arrest or when his “freedom of movement is restrained to a degree associated with formal arrest.”

Whether questioning falls within the public safety exception turns on “whether there was an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger.” (quoting United States v. Brady, 819 F.2d 884, 888 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987)).

(stating that we presume the trial judge knows the law).

(“We presume that the jurors read and followed the relevant instructions.”).

“know (or have cognizance) of the item which he is accused of having dominion or control over.” ¶15 “When the jury appears to be confused about a legal issue, and the resolution of the question is not apparent from an earlier instruction, the trial judge has a responsibility to give the jury the required guidance by a lucid statement of the relevant legal criteria.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(“[T]he trial court is presumed to know and follow the law.” (citation omitted)); (stating that the reviewing court presumes the trial judge is aware of the rules of evidence).

Consequently, “[w]hen a jury asks a judge about a matter on which it has received adequate instruction, the judge may in his or her discretion refuse to answer, or may refer the jury to the earlier instruction.”

.”); (“[T]here is no presumption that jurors will disobey instructions given them by the court.” (citation omitted)).

Indeed, under these circumstances, the court had a “responsibility to give the jury the required guidance by a lucid statement of the relevant legal criteria.” ( and Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 612-13 (1946)).

And, that “[a] prosecutor may .