§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. SAUCEDA-CONTRERAS

Appellant's Answer to Petition for Review

8 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,311 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 2,858 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. Davis v. United States

    512 U.S. 452 (1994)   Cited 3,050 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the suspect must unambiguously request counsel."

  4. Smith v. Illinois

    469 U.S. 91 (1984)   Cited 1,122 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding statement "Uh, yeah, I'd like to do that" upon learning of the right to counsel was unambiguous

  5. People v. Williams

    49 Cal.4th 405 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 1,045 times
    Holding that "the suggestions made by the interrogating officers that defendant may not have been the actual killer, or may not have intended that the victim die" were a permissible interrogation tactic

  6. In re Manuel G.

    16 Cal.4th 805 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 661 times
    Concluding that "executive officer" as used in section 69 is "not limited to peace officers ..., but extends to other executive officers"

  7. 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

  8. 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)