§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MONTES (JOSEPH MANUEL)

Appellant’s Reply Brief

201 Cited authorities

  1. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 20,088 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  2. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,517 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation

  3. Batson v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 79 (1986)   Cited 15,291 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

  4. Strickler v. Greene

    527 U.S. 263 (1999)   Cited 6,416 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a newspaper article detailing that a witness had been interviewed by the police did not suffice to put a defendant's lawyer on notice that records and evidence concerning the witness existed and had been suppressed

  5. United States v. Bagley

    473 U.S. 667 (1985)   Cited 9,471 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant

  6. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,563 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  7. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 5,318 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that admission of an involuntary statement is subject to harmless-error review

  8. 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

  9. 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"

  10. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,668 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

  11. Section 15

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

  12. Section 7

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

  13. 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"

  14. Section 17

    Cal. Const. art. I § 17   Cited 1,420 times
    Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

  15. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,861 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary