§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. RICCARDI (JOHN A.)

Respondent's Reply Letter Brief

28 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,491 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements

  2. Davis v. Washington

    547 U.S. 813 (2006)   Cited 4,833 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

  3. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,566 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  4. Giles v. California

    554 U.S. 353 (2008)   Cited 823 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that exception applies "only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying"

  5. People v. Bolin

    18 Cal.4th 297 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,672 times
    Holding that defendant's act of retrieving gun after arguing with victim supported finding that murder was premeditated

  6. People v. Waidla

    22 Cal.4th 690 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 2,687 times
    Rejecting a similar claim raised in a perfunctory fashion

  7. Tennessee v. Street

    471 U.S. 409 (1985)   Cited 779 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-hearsay admissions do not raise "Confrontation Clause concerns"

  8. People v. Watson

    46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956)   Cited 13,773 times
    Holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error

  9. People v. Gutierrez

    45 Cal.4th 789 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 744 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a voluntary manslaughter instruction is not warranted where the act that allegedly provoked the killing was no more than taunting words, a technical battery, or slight touching."

  10. People v. Jablonski

    37 Cal.4th 774 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 662 times
    Holding that the rule of judicially declared immunity for statements made in a compelled mental competency examination fully protects a defendant against any nonevidentiary uses of statements obtained from the defendant during the competency hearing to the same extent he or she is protected by the privilege against self-incrimination