§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. EROSHEVICH

Respondent, Howard K. Stern, Answer Brief on the Merits

33 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Superior Court (Romero)

    13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 6,219 times
    Holding that the sentencing court has the power under the Three Strikes Law to dismiss one or more prior “strikes” in the interest of justice

  2. Benton v. Maryland

    395 U.S. 784 (1969)   Cited 3,342 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment"

  3. United States v. Scott

    437 U.S. 82 (1978)   Cited 1,270 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause doesn't prohibit retrial of a defendant after a defendant successfully moves for a mistrial because "[the defendant] was . . . neither acquitted nor convicted, because he himself successfully undertook to persuade the trial court not to submit the issue of guilt or innocence to the jury"

  4. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.

    430 U.S. 564 (1977)   Cited 1,080 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding "appeals by the Government from . . . judgments of acquittal" entered under Rule 29 are authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3731 "unless barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution"

  5. United States v. Wilson

    420 U.S. 332 (1975)   Cited 911 times
    Holding that the underlying premise of double jeopardy was "that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense"

  6. Sanabria v. United States

    437 U.S. 54 (1978)   Cited 775 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Blockburger test did not apply to violation of a single statute

  7. Hudson v. Louisiana

    450 U.S. 40 (1981)   Cited 663 times
    Holding that, when the record clearly shows that a motion for new trial was granted based on legally insufficient evidence, and not because the trial court acted as a proverbial "13th juror," a retrial is barred by double jeopardy

  8. Evans v. Michigan

    568 U.S. 313 (2013)   Cited 227 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court's erroneous ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of an alleged element of the crime at defendant's trial that it was not, in fact, required to prove was not subject to appellate review

  9. Smith v. Massachusetts

    543 U.S. 462 (2005)   Cited 240 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even when the jury is the primary fact finder, the trial judge may resolve that the government failed to carry its burden

  10. Arizona v. Rumsey

    467 U.S. 203 (1984)   Cited 383 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that trial court's imposition of a life sentence, based on its incorrect finding that, as a matter of law, robbery did not amount to an aggravating circumstance warranting the death penalty, was an acquittal barring further prosecution

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,314 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  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)