§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. WEATHERTON

Appellant’s Reply Brief

134 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,197 times   224 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

    526 U.S. 137 (1999)   Cited 12,574 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

  3. Early v. Packer

    537 U.S. 3 (2002)   Cited 5,531 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state court need not cite federal case law so long as it does not contradict that case law

  4. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 7,248 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

  5. General Electric Co. v. Joiner

    522 U.S. 136 (1997)   Cited 4,846 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous

  6. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,453 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  7. Holmes v. South Carolina

    547 U.S. 319 (2006)   Cited 1,894 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a rule that categorically barred evidence of third-party guilt when strong forensic evidence of the defendant's guilt was presented "is arbitrary in the sense that it does not rationally serve the end that ... [it was] designed to further"

  8. Gregg v. Georgia

    428 U.S. 153 (1976)   Cited 6,615 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"

  9. California v. Trombetta

    467 U.S. 479 (1984)   Cited 4,130 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

  10. Manson v. Brathwaite

    432 U.S. 98 (1977)   Cited 5,586 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, if police procedures are unduly suggestive, identification will be excluded if its reliability does not outweigh corrupting influence of suggestive procedure

  11. Rule 606 - Juror's Competency as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 606   Cited 1,687 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Stating that jurors are generally incompetent to testify concerning jury deliberations

  12. Rule 4.111 - Pretrial motions in criminal cases

    Cal. R. 4.111   Cited 10 times

    (a) Time for filing papers and proof of service Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all pretrial motions, accompanied by a memorandum must, be served and filed at least 10 court days, all papers opposing the motion at least 5 court days, and all reply papers at least 2 court days before the time appointed for hearing. Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than 5 court days before the time appointed for hearing. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2010;