§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CASE

Appellant’s Reply Brief

106 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,305 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

  2. Whren v. United States

    517 U.S. 806 (1996)   Cited 8,617 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, upon observing traffic violation, officer may stop vehicle regardless of his subjective motivations, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action"

  3. Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins

    560 U.S. 370 (2010)   Cited 2,856 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts can "deny writs of habeas corpus under § 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA deference applies"

  4. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

    412 U.S. 218 (1973)   Cited 11,971 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search

  5. 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’ "

  6. Missouri v. Seibert

    542 U.S. 600 (2004)   Cited 1,990 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[s]trategists dedicated to draining the substance out of" constitutional protections cannot accomplish by planning around these protections because it "effectively threatens to thwart [their] purpose"

  7. Davis v. United States

    512 U.S. 452 (1994)   Cited 3,050 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the suspect must unambiguously request counsel."

  8. Dickerson v. United States

    530 U.S. 428 (2000)   Cited 2,290 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

  9. Moran v. Burbine

    475 U.S. 412 (1986)   Cited 4,091 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted

  10. Nix v. Williams

    467 U.S. 431 (1984)   Cited 3,123 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the benefits and costs of the exclusionary rule "are properly balanced by putting the police in the same, not a worse , position that they would have been in if no police error or misconduct had occurred"

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,314 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  12. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,776 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

  13. 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