§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. SÁNCHEZ (EDGARDO)

Appellant’s Reply Brief

300 Cited authorities

  1. Miller-El v. Cockrell

    537 U.S. 322 (2003)   Cited 48,734 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government's exclusion of 10 out of 14, or 91%, of Black prospective jurors—along with the state's unreliable justifications—showed purposeful discrimination

  2. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,484 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

  3. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,860 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  4. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 20,085 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  5. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 9,526 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence

  6. Batson v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 79 (1986)   Cited 15,288 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

  7. Tennard v. Dretke

    542 U.S. 274 (2004)   Cited 5,534 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"

  8. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,561 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  9. Miller-El v. Dretke

    545 U.S. 231 (2005)   Cited 2,712 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a prosecutor “would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions” if he truly considered a race-neutral characteristic grounds for a peremptory strike

  10. Darden v. Wainwright

    477 U.S. 168 (1986)   Cited 6,598 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"

  11. Section 190.2 - Penalty for defendant found guilty of first-degree murder with special circumstance

    Cal. Pen. Code § 190.2   Cited 6,012 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Prescribing penalty of death or LWOP for special circumstance murder

  12. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,320 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  13. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. I § 7   Cited 2,130 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

  14. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,781 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

  15. Section 17

    Cal. Const. art. I § 17   Cited 1,419 times
    Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

  16. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. I § 1   Cited 1,061 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

  17. Section 240 - "Unavailable as a witness"

    Cal. Evid. Code § 240   Cited 732 times
    Requiring reasonable diligence before witness treated as unavailable

  18. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 16 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in appeals from judgments of death must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed the following limits, including footnotes: (A) Appellant's opening brief: 102,000 words. (B) Respondent's brief: 102,000 words. If the Chief Justice permits the appellant to file an opening brief that exceeds the limit set in (1)(A) or