§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CARRASCO

Appellant’s Reply Brief

167 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,894 times   176 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

  2. Williams v. Taylor

    529 U.S. 362 (2000)   Cited 37,794 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

  3. 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

  4. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 9,486 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence

  5. United States v. Bagley

    473 U.S. 667 (1985)   Cited 9,437 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. Rompilla v. Beard

    545 U.S. 374 (2005)   Cited 2,977 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's minimal investigation was deficient even though the defendant was "actively obstructive by sending counsel off on false leads"

  7. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,494 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  8. United States v. Cronic

    466 U.S. 648 (1984)   Cited 7,370 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"

  9. Arizona v. Youngblood

    488 U.S. 51 (1988)   Cited 3,875 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law"

  10. California v. Trombetta

    467 U.S. 479 (1984)   Cited 4,135 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Constitution does not require the state to preserve a breath sample used in a breath-analysis test in a DUI prosecution

  11. Section 352 - Balancing of probative value with prejudice

    Cal. Evid. Code § 352   Cited 12,812 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Giving a trial court discretion to exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury"

  12. Section Amendment V - Rights of Persons

    U.S. Const. amend. V   Cited 19,313 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment

  13. Section 15

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

  14. Section 7

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

  15. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,777 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

  16. Section 17

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

  17. Section 1043 - Presence of defendant

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1043   Cited 206 times

    (a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, the defendant in a felony case shall be personally present at the trial. (b)The absence of the defendant in a felony case after the trial has commenced in their physical presence shall not prevent continuing the trial to, and including, the return of the verdict in any of the following cases: (1)Any case in which the defendant, after being warned by the judge that they will be removed if they continue their disruptive behavior, nevertheless insists

  18. 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