§Why CasetextPricing

Lloyd Copenbarger vs. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism

Opposition

13 Cited authorities

  1. California v. Green

    399 U.S. 149 (1970)   Cited 2,939 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Confrontation Clause does not require excluding from evidence the prior statements of a witness who concedes making those statements"

  2. Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assu. Co.

    286 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1961)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that a fifty-eight-year-old newspaper article describing a contemporaneous fire in the clock tower of a courthouse, which article did not fall under a recognized hearsay exception, was nonetheless admissible where that account was trustworthy, necessary, relevant, and material to the issue of whether lightning caused the tower to collapse

  3. People v. Guzman

    47 Cal.App.3d 380 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 71 times
    Acknowledging the propriety of CALJIC No. 2.52

  4. People v. Spriggs

    60 Cal.2d 868 (Cal. 1964)   Cited 95 times
    In People v. Spriggs (60 Cal.2d 868, supra), the California Supreme Court held the admission against penal interest admissible without reaching, on that record, the kind of lack of availability which would become a basis for taking the admission.

  5. People v. London

    206 Cal.App.3d 896 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 42 times
    In London, the trial court denied defense counsel's request to refer in closing argument to a magazine article that reported an incident in which an eyewitness erroneously identified a district attorney as the perpetrator of a crime.

  6. People v. West

    139 Cal.App.3d 606 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 26 times
    In West, supra, 139 Cal.App.3d 606, the requested instruction listed eight factors for the jury to consider in determining whether there was reasonable doubt as to the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator.

  7. People v. Moreno

    181 Colo. 106 (Colo. 1973)   Cited 31 times
    Holding two instances of violating § 148 were two offenses because thirty minutes elapsed between the two incidents and "[i]n the intervening space of time the defendant had completely calmed down, and ceased his criminal activity"

  8. People v. Woodson

    231 Cal.App.2d 10 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 13 times
    In Woodson, defense counsel sought to refer in closing argument to a newspaper article which concerned the governor's pardon of a person convicted of three robberies which were later established to have been committed by another man.

  9. Burke v. Watts

    188 Cal. 118 (Cal. 1922)   Cited 48 times
    In Burke v. Watts, 188 Cal. 118 [ 204 P. 578], the jury were instructed that "if you find... the defendant... communicated to the district attorney... all of the material facts known to him... and then acted upon the advice of the district attorney, the presumption of malice and want of probable cause is rebutted."

  10. Miller v. Lee

    66 Cal.App.2d 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 1944)   Cited 16 times
    In Miller v. Lee, 66 Cal.App.2d 778, 785 [ 153 P.2d 190], it was said that a superseded pleading may be admitted "as containing admissions... [and] for the purpose of impeaching" the opposing party's testimony.

  11. Section 780 - Factors to be considered in determining credibility

    Cal. Evid. Code § 780   Cited 1,168 times
    Listing factors court may consider in determining credibility of a witness

  12. Section 785 - By any party

    Cal. Evid. Code § 785   Cited 137 times

    The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by any party, including the party calling him. Ca. Evid. Code § 785 Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.

  13. Section 786 - Admissibility of character evidence

    Cal. Evid. Code § 786   Cited 99 times

    Evidence of traits of his character other than honesty or veracity, or their opposites, is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness. Ca. Evid. Code § 786 Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.