§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. DAVEGGIO & MICHAUD

Amicus Brief of California Appellate Project

28 Cited authorities

  1. Zafiro v. United States

    506 U.S. 534 (1993)   Cited 3,801 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court's jury instructions may cure any risk of prejudice from antagonistic defenses

  2. Bruton v. United States

    391 U.S. 123 (1968)   Cited 8,923 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant

  3. Zant v. Stephens

    462 U.S. 862 (1983)   Cited 1,724 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an aggravating circumstance must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty"

  4. Woodson v. North Carolina

    428 U.S. 280 (1976)   Cited 1,930 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the State's mandatory death penalty statute violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

  5. Mills v. Maryland

    486 U.S. 367 (1988)   Cited 1,036 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the risk that the death penalty will be imposed in spite of factors which may call for a less severe penalty is unacceptable and incompatible with the commands of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments”

  6. People v. Coffman and Marlow

    34 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,734 times
    Finding "[a]ny error in failing to instruct on second degree implied-malice murder as a lesser included offense of premeditated and deliberate first degree murder was harmless, because the factual question posed by the omitted instruction necessarily was resolved unfavorably to Coffman under the instructions on the special circumstance allegations, which required a finding of intent to kill."

  7. People v. Mendoza

    24 Cal.4th 130 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,178 times
    Finding no cross-admissibility but affirming trial court's denial of defendant's severance motion

  8. People v. Arias

    13 Cal.4th 92 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 1,119 times
    Holding that that trial court was correct in its "determination that the offenses, all involving assaultive behavior, were of the same class, and thus properly joinable"

  9. People v. Cummings

    4 Cal.4th 1233 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 916 times
    Holding that in a murder trial, the lower court prejudicially admitted into evidence the separate conviction of a codefendant's wife as an accessory to murder and robbery under Evidence Code section 352

  10. People v. Hardy

    2 Cal.4th 86 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 850 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding "no reasonable probability . . . [of] actual prejudice" where the trial court permitted a juror, during a view of a crime scene, to examine a door and to have it opened and closed

  11. 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”

  12. Section Amendment VII - Civil Trials

    U.S. Const. amend. VII   Cited 1,471 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Preserving the right to trial by jury for "[s]uits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars"

  13. Rule 8.77 - Actions by court on receipt of electronically submitted document; date and time of filing

    Cal. R. 8.77   Cited 2 times

    (a) Confirmation of receipt and filing of document (1)Confirmation of receipt When the court receives an electronically submitted document, the court must arrange to promptly send the electronic filer confirmation of the court's receipt of the document, indicating the date and time of receipt by the court. (2)Filing If the electronically submitted document received by the court complies with filing requirements, the document is deemed filed on the date and time it was received by the court as stated

  14. Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing

    Cal. R. 8.71

    (a) Mandatory electronic filing Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the Supreme Court Rules Regarding Electronic Filing, or court order, all parties are required to file all documents electronically in the reviewing court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2020.) (b)Self-represented parties (1) Self-represented parties are exempt from the requirement to file documents electronically. (2) A self-represented party may agree to file documents electronically. By electronically filing any

  15. Rule 8.78 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 8.78

    (a) Authorization for electronic service; exceptions (1) A document may be electronically served under these rules: (A) If electronic service is provided for by law or court order; or (B) If the recipient agrees to accept electronic services as provided by these rules and the document is otherwise authorized to be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission. (2) A party indicates that the party agrees to accept electronic service by: (A) Serving a notice on all parties that