§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. BRYANT

Appellant, Leroy Wheeler, Reply Brief

89 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,419 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"

  2. Estelle v. Gamble

    429 U.S. 97 (1976)   Cited 54,870 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government has an obligation to provide medical care to incarcerated persons

  3. Brecht v. Abrahamson

    507 U.S. 619 (1993)   Cited 11,817 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a court has "never squarely addressed the issue, and ha at most assumed" something in a prior decision, it is "free to address the issue on the merits"

  4. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,491 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  5. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 5,294 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

  6. Darden v. Wainwright

    477 U.S. 168 (1986)   Cited 6,572 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"

  7. Sullivan v. Louisiana

    508 U.S. 275 (1993)   Cited 3,282 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

  8. Bruton v. United States

    391 U.S. 123 (1968)   Cited 8,928 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant

  9. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo

    416 U.S. 637 (1974)   Cited 6,218 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because a prosecutor's statement during closing argument was ambiguous, it was not so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of due process

  10. Gideon v. Wainwright

    372 U.S. 335 (1963)   Cited 8,393 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel in all state felony prosecutions

  11. Section 128 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 128   Cited 1,039 times
    In Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), which directs us to accept a stipulation of the parties for reversal only if we find: (1) "[t]here is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal," and (2) "[t]he reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement."

  12. 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