§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MONTES (JOSEPH MANUEL)

Appellant’s Reply Brief

201 Cited authorities

  1. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,985 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 60,311 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

  3. Batson v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 79 (1986)   Cited 15,244 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 6,389 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 9,435 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 23,491 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 5,294 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

  8. Miller-El v. Dretke

    545 U.S. 231 (2005)   Cited 2,699 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 6,572 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"

  10. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,648 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 3,314 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  12. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. I § 7   Cited 2,117 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

  13. 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"

  14. Section 17

    Cal. Const. art. I § 17   Cited 1,409 times
    Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

  15. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,846 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