§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CLARK (WILLIAM CLINTON)

Respondent’s Supplemental Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. Wainwright v. Witt

    469 U.S. 412 (1985)   Cited 3,274 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that juror bias determination is a question of fact, even though "[t]he trial judge is of course applying some kind of legal standard to what he sees and hears"

  2. Lockhart v. McCree

    476 U.S. 162 (1986)   Cited 1,414 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fair cross-section requirement applies to jury pool not petit jury

  3. Uttecht v. Brown

    551 U.S. 1 (2007)   Cited 478 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court was within its discretion to exclude a juror because the record "show[ed] considerable confusion on the part of the juror"

  4. People v. Jenkins

    22 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,619 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it was not error to refuse to permit counsel to ask questions based upon an account of the facts of this case, or to ask a juror to consider particular facts that would cause him or her to impose the death penalty," because "`The Witherspoon-Witt voir dire seeks to determine only the views of the prospective jurors about capital punishment in the abstract. . . . The inquiry is directed to whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an "open mind" on the penalty determination.'"

  5. People v. McWhorter

    47 Cal.4th 318 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 477 times
    Holding that trial court properly examined totality of circumstances by viewing recording of police interview in its entirety, not "in snippets or parts"

  6. People v. Leon

    61 Cal.4th 569 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 344 times
    Holding trial court did not err in allowing evidence relating to dismissed charges to be admitted to show evidence of motive and intent

  7. People v. Stewart

    33 Cal.4th 425 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 434 times
    Finding error where trial court acted without the parties' prior agreement in granting several prosecution challenges for cause solely on the basis of the questionnaire responses, despite earlier assurances that it would conduct further oral voir dire to address any ambiguous responses and despite the defendant's repeated objections to the procedure

  8. People v. Carasi

    44 Cal.4th 1263 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 333 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the jury could reasonably "conclude that defendant sought to benefit financially" from the victim's death by eliminating his monthly child support obligation, given the fact defendant had limited financial resources and he "perceived his child support obligation to [the victim] as a tremendous burden, calling her a ‘bitch’ and ‘whore’ who deserved to die, and saying that his financial future would be ‘fucked’ if nothing changed"

  9. People v. DeSantis

    2 Cal.4th 1198 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 469 times
    Holding that trial court’s statement that defendant’s guilt "has already been decided" "did not remove the question of lingering doubt from the jury, but only told it the truth: that in the penalty phase defendant’s guilt was to be conclusively presumed as a matter of law"

  10. People v. Robinson

    37 Cal.4th 592 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 285 times
    Finding § 1138 error harmless under both Watson and Chapman standards

  11. Section 800 - Lay witness opinion testimony

    Cal. Evid. Code § 800   Cited 642 times
    Requiring lay opinion testimony be "[h]elpful to a clear understanding of testimony"