§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. PEOPLES (LOUIS JAMES)

Respondent’s Brief

230 Cited authorities

  1. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 43,272 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

  2. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 5,281 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

  3. Wong Sun v. United States

    371 U.S. 471 (1963)   Cited 12,229 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding evidence stemming from Fourth Amendment violations must be excluded from trial as fruit of the poisonous tree

  4. Payne v. Tennessee

    501 U.S. 808 (1991)   Cited 2,608 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

  5. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

    480 U.S. 39 (1987)   Cited 2,670 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"

  6. Boyde v. California

    494 U.S. 370 (1990)   Cited 2,320 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Boyde's strength of character in the face of adversity was considered evidence that "excused" the gravity of the crime under factor (k)

  7. Lockett v. Ohio

    438 U.S. 586 (1978)   Cited 3,737 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Ohio death penalty statute, which required imposition of the death penalty once a defendant was found guilty of aggravated murder with at least one of seven specified aggravating factors, unless one of three specified mitigating factors was established by a preponderance of the evidence, violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the statute limited the range of mitigating factors that the sentencer could consider

  8. Victor v. Nebraska

    511 U.S. 1 (1994)   Cited 1,746 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof," so long as the instructions taken as a whole correctly convey the concept of "reasonable doubt"

  9. People v. Doolin

    45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 3,863 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied

  10. Oregon v. Kennedy

    456 U.S. 667 (1982)   Cited 1,780 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to claim double jeopardy bar defendant must show "government conduct in question [was] intended to `goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial"

  11. Section 170.3 - Judge determining himself or herself to be disqualified

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.3   Cited 715 times
    Ruling on peremptory challenge is not appealable

  12. Section 5-A:1 - Adoption of Compact

    N.H. Rev. Stat. § 5-A:1   Cited 5 times

    The following interpleader compact is hereby approved, ratified, adopted and entered into by this state as a party state to take effect between this state and any other state or states as defined in said compact when entered into in accordance with the terms of said compact by said other state or states and not disapproved by the governor of this state under paragraph (c) of article 7 of such compact: Interpleader Compact The contracting states solemnly agree: Article 1.Purpose. The aims of this