§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MAI (HUNG T.)

Appellant’s Reply Brief

315 Cited authorities

  1. Miller-El v. Cockrell

    537 U.S. 322 (2003)   Cited 48,538 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 158,894 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"

  3. 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

  4. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,659 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"

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Bell v. Cone

    535 U.S. 685 (2002)   Cited 9,830 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”

  8. Whren v. United States

    517 U.S. 806 (1996)   Cited 8,619 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"

  9. Batson v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 79 (1986)   Cited 15,246 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

  10. Massaro v. U.S.

    538 U.S. 500 (2003)   Cited 5,867 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that failure to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal does not bar a defendant from bringing the claim in a later, appropriate collateral proceeding

  11. 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"

  12. 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