§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MAI (HUNG T.)

Appellant’s Opening Brief

536 Cited authorities

  1. Miller-El v. Cockrell

    537 U.S. 322 (2003)   Cited 48,446 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government's exclusion of 10 out of 14, or 91%, of Black prospective jurors—along with the state's unreliable justifications—showed purposeful discrimination

  2. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,620 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"

  3. Williams v. Taylor

    529 U.S. 362 (2000)   Cited 37,736 times   66 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

  4. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,625 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

  5. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,610 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”

  6. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,575 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  7. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,949 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  8. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 9,463 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

  9. Bell v. Cone

    535 U.S. 685 (2002)   Cited 9,809 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state court adjudication that “correctly identified the principles announced [by the Supreme Court] as those governing the analysis ... was [not] contrary to ... clearly established law”

  10. Whren v. United States

    517 U.S. 806 (1996)   Cited 8,594 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"

  11. Section 922 - Unlawful acts

    18 U.S.C. § 922   Cited 60,114 times   181 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce"

  12. Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

    U.S. Const. amend. VI   Cited 28,093 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

  13. Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection

    U.S. Const. amend. XIV   Cited 11,396 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting deprivations by “State”

  14. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,311 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  15. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,774 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 1,406 times
    Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

  17. Section 1958 - Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire

    18 U.S.C. § 1958   Cited 923 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Proscribing murder-for-hire and describing "intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of any State"

  18. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,834 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

  19. 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