This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Sandoval (D) shot three men, two of them fatally in a gang-related incident. Two weeks later he entered the home of a man who had informed on him to the police related to the prior shooting and shot him dead and then killed his wife who witnessed the murder. D was found guilty and sentenced to death. The jury instruction regarding reasonable doubt contained the following disputed statements: not a mere possible doubt, depending on moral evidence, to a moral certainty. The California Supreme Court rejected D's claim that the instructions with the above statements violated Due Process. Victor (D1) went to the home of an 82-year-old woman for whom he did gardening work for and beat her with a pipe, cut her throat and killed her. D1 was convicted of first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. D appealed based on the contents of his jury instruction regarding reasonable doubt: to a moral certainty, strong probabilities of the case, actual and substantial doubt.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.