Jury Trial

When it comes to LPS conservatorship trials, the jury instructions must be clear and specific.

Below are the California Jury Instructions for LPS trials:

Jury Instructions for LPS trial  
In the case of a jury trial, these are the jury instructions. They vary county to county but overall they are very similar. This is what the public defender will say during the trial to the jury. It will instruct the jury about the nature of the case and what will be presented. Some things cannot be considered when deciding the verdict and some can be.
 
[Name of petitioner] claims that [name of respondent] is gravely disabled
due to [a mental disorder/impairment by chronic alcoholism] and
therefore should be placed in a conservatorship. In a conservatorship, a
conservator is appointed to oversee, under the direction of the court, the
care of persons who are gravely disabled due to a mental disorder or
chronic alcoholism. To succeed on this claim, [name of petitioner] must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following:
1. That [name of respondent] [has a mental disorder/is impaired by
chronic alcoholism]; [and]
2. That [name of respondent] is gravely disabled as a result of the
[mental disorder/chronic alcoholism][; and/.]
[3. That [name of respondent] is unwilling or unable voluntarily to
accept meaningful treatment.
 
These preliminary instructions serve to establish the factual background. The jury will be instructed on the basic information of the matters. 
 
 
 
4001.“Mental Disorder” Explained
The term “mental disorder” is limited to those disorders described in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the
American Psychiatric Association. This book is sometimes referred to as the DSM.

Again this establishes a basis for diagnosis.
 
 
4002.“Gravely Disabled” Explained
The term “gravely disabled” means that a person is presently unable to
provide for his or her basic needs for food, clothing, or shelter because
of [a mental disorder/impairment by chronic alcoholism]. [The term
“gravely disabled” does not include mentally retarded persons by
reason of being mentally retarded alone.]
 
[[Insert one or more of the following:] [psychosis/bizarre or eccentric
behavior/delusions/hallucinations/[insert other]] [is/are] not enough, by
[itself/themselves], to find that [name of respondent] is gravely disabled.
[He/She] must be unable to provide for the basic needs of food, clothing,
or shelter because of [a mental disorder/impairment by chronic
alcoholism].]
 
[If you find [name of respondent] will not take [his/her] prescribed
medication without supervision and that a mental disorder makes [him/
her] unable to provide for [his/her] basic needs for food, clothing, or
shelter without such medication, then you may conclude [name of
respondent] is presently gravely disabled.
In determining whether [name of respondent] is presently gravely
disabled, you may consider evidence that [he/she] did not take
prescribed medication in the past. You may also consider evidence of
[his/her] lack of insight into [his/her] mental condition.]
In considering whether [name of respondent] is presently gravely
disabled, you may not consider the likelihood of future deterioration or
relapse of a condition.
New June 2005
 
Contest whether present grave disability is relevant
Contest whether medication compliance alone can determine grave disability
Discuss whether historical course of mental disorder is serious enough to determine grave disability
Discuss whether strange or abnormal behaviour is criteria alone for grave disability (cite legal) even if able to care for own needs
Discuss if homelessness is criteria for grave disability even if can provide for needs on streets through services (cite legal)
 
 
4004.Issues Not to Be Considered
In determining whether [name of respondent] is gravely disabled, you
must not consider or discuss the type of treatment, care, or supervision
that may be ordered if a conservatorship is established
 
Nothing here
 
 
 
4005.Obligation to Prove—Reasonable Doubt
[Name of respondent] is presumed not to be gravely disabled. [Name of
petitioner] has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that
[name of respondent] is gravely disabled. The fact that a petition has
been filed claiming [name of respondent] is gravely disabled is not
evidence that this claim is true.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an
abiding conviction that [name of respondent] is gravely disabled as a
result of [a mental disorder/impairment by chronic alcoholism]. The
evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life
is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
In deciding whether [name of respondent] is gravely disabled, you must
impartially compare and consider all the evidence that was received
throughout the entire trial.
Unless the evidence proves that [name of respondent] is gravely disabled
because of [a mental disorder/impairment by chronic alcoholism]
beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find that [he/she] is not gravely
disabled.
Although a conservatorship is a civil proceeding, the burden of proof is
the same as in criminal trials
 
Discuss matter of hearsay rules. Do criminal rules apply. Can the expert witness be impeached? Can an independent psychiatrist be appointed for evaluation? (Welfare and Inst Code 5350 et cetra)
 
 
 
4006.Sufficiency of Indirect Circumstantial Evidence
You may not decide that [name of respondent] is gravely disabled based
substantially on indirect evidence unless this evidence:
1. Is consistent with the conclusion that [name of respondent] is
gravely disabled due to [a mental disorder/impairment by
chronic alcoholism]; and
2. Cannot be explained by any other reasonable conclusion.
If the indirect evidence suggests two reasonable interpretations, one of
which suggests the existence of a grave disability and the other its
nonexistence, then you must accept the interpretation that suggests
[name of respondent] is not gravely disabled.
If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you
to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you
must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable
one.
If you base your verdict on indirect evidence, [name of petitioner] must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt each fact essential to your conclusion
that [name of respondent] is gravely disabled.
 
 
 
4006.Sufficiency of Indirect Circumstantial Evidence
You may not decide that [name of respondent] is gravely disabled based
substantially on indirect evidence unless this evidence:
1. Is consistent with the conclusion that [name of respondent] is
gravely disabled due to [a mental disorder/impairment by
chronic alcoholism]; and
2. Cannot be explained by any other reasonable conclusion.
If the indirect evidence suggests two reasonable interpretations, one of
which suggests the existence of a grave disability and the other its
nonexistence, then you must accept the interpretation that suggests
[name of respondent] is not gravely disabled.
If, on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you
to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you
must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable
one.
If you base your verdict on indirect evidence, [name of petitioner] must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt each fact essential to your conclusion
that [name of respondent] is gravely disabled.
New June 2005
 
 
4007.Third Party Assistance
A person is not “gravely disabled” if [he/she] can survive safely with the
help of third party assistance. Third party assistance is the aid of
family, friends, or others who are responsible, willing, and able to help
provide for the person’s basic needs for food, clothing, or shelter.
You must not consider offers by family, friends, or others unless they
[have testified to/stated specifically in writing] their willingness and
ability to help provide [name of respondent] with food, clothing, or
shelter. Well-intended offers of assistance are not sufficient unless they
will ensure the person can survive safely.
 
 
 
4010.Limiting Instruction—Expert Testimony
You have heard testimony by an expert witness regarding reports and
statements from hospital staff and other persons who have come into
contact with [name of respondent]. This testimony was admitted for the
limited purpose of establishing the basis for the opinion expressed by
the testifying expert. You may consider those reports and statements to
help you examine the basis of the expert’s opinion. You may not use the
reports and statements as independent proof of respondent’s mental
condition or [his/her] ability to provide for food, clothing, or shelter.
New June 2005
Discuss impeaching witness and independent review by 3rd party psychiatrist
 
 
4011.History of Disorder Relevant to the Determination of Grave
Disability
You must consider information about the history of [name of
respondent]’s alleged mental disorder if you believe this information has
a direct bearing on whether [he/she] is presently gravely disabled as a
result of a mental disorder. Such information may include testimony
from persons who have provided, or are providing, mental health or
related support services to [name of respondent], [his/her] medical
records, including psychiatric records, or testimony from family
members, [name of respondent], or any other person designated by [name
of respondent].
You must not consider any evidence that you believe is irrelevant
because it occurred either too long ago or under circumstances that are
not similar to those involved in this case.
New June 2005
 
 
4012.Concluding Instruction
To find that [name of respondent] is gravely disabled, all 12 jurors must
agree on the verdict. To find that [name of respondent] is not gravely
disabled, only 9 jurors must agree on the verdict. As soon as you have
agreed on a verdict, the presiding juror must date and sign the form
and notify the [clerk/bailiff].
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
​