§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. WESTERFIELD

Appellant’s Opening Brief

256 Cited authorities

  1. 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”

  2. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,568 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"

  3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,228 times   224 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  4. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,947 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  5. United States v. Olano

    507 U.S. 725 (1993)   Cited 11,242 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plain error review requires a reviewing court to refrain from correcting an error unless it is plain and affects "substantial rights," such that the error "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings"

  6. Illinois v. Gates

    462 U.S. 213 (1983)   Cited 18,916 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a warrant may issue only when probable cause exists under the "totality-of-the-circumstances"

  7. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,240 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

  8. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,998 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”

  9. United States v. Leon

    468 U.S. 897 (1984)   Cited 10,228 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a warrant is "subsequently invalidated," suppression is not necessary so long as the warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate and the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable

  10. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,461 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

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

    U.S. Const. amend. VI   Cited 28,091 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."

  12. Section Amendment V - Rights of Persons

    U.S. Const. amend. V   Cited 19,267 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment

  13. 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"

  14. Rule 8.224 - Transmitting exhibits

    Cal. R. 8.224   Cited 245 times

    (a)Notice of designation (1) Within 10 days after the last respondent's brief is filed or could be filed under rule 8.220, a party wanting the reviewing court to consider any original exhibits that were admitted in evidence, refused, or lodged but that were not copied in the clerk's transcript under rule 8.122 or the appendix under rule 8.124 must serve and file a notice in superior court designating such exhibits. (2) Within 10 days after a notice under (1) is served, any other party wanting the

  15. Rule 8.634 - Transmitting exhibits; augmenting the record in the Supreme Court

    Cal. R. 8.634   Cited 17 times

    (a) Application Except as provided in (b), rule 8.224 governs the transmission of exhibits to the Supreme Court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 2004.) (b)Time to file notice of designation No party may file a notice designating exhibits under rule 8.224(a) until the clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court notifies the parties of the time and place of oral argument. (Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2018; previously amended effective

  16. 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