§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MANZO

Appellant's Petition for Review

52 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,290 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

  2. Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins

    560 U.S. 370 (2010)   Cited 2,850 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts can "deny writs of habeas corpus under § 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA deference applies"

  3. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,482 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  4. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 5,291 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

  5. Sullivan v. Louisiana

    508 U.S. 275 (1993)   Cited 3,280 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

  6. Dickerson v. United States

    530 U.S. 428 (2000)   Cited 2,289 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

  7. Oregon v. Elstad

    470 U.S. 298 (1985)   Cited 2,921 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Fifth Amendment Miranda violations do not require that fruits of otherwise voluntary statements be suppressed as tainted

  8. Malloy v. Hogan

    378 U.S. 1 (1964)   Cited 3,101 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a witness properly invoked the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer questions about associates at the time of a prior gambling arrest, despite the expiration of the statute of limitations, because such disclosure “might furnish a link in a chain of evidence sufficient to connect the petitioner with a more recent crime”

  9. P1eople. v. Hill

    17 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,801 times
    Holding the prosecutor committed misconduct insofar as her statement that '"[t]here has to be some evidence on which to base a doubt'" "could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting to the jury she did not have the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"

  10. People v. Bolin

    18 Cal.4th 297 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,661 times
    Holding that defendant's act of retrieving gun after arguing with victim supported finding that murder was premeditated

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  12. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)