§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. ELIZALDE

Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

27 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,244 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. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,463 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  3. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 5,281 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

  4. Berkemer v. McCarty

    468 U.S. 420 (1984)   Cited 5,539 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "routine" traffic stops are not custodial for Miranda purposes but that if a motorist is "subjected to treatment that renders him ‘in custody’ for practical purposes, he will be entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda "

  5. Edwards v. Arizona

    451 U.S. 477 (1981)   Cited 6,423 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that continued questioning violates Fifth Amendment if suspect clearly asserts right to counsel

  6. Rhode Island v. Innis

    446 U.S. 291 (1980)   Cited 6,127 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred

  7. McNeil v. Wisconsin

    501 U.S. 171 (1991)   Cited 1,800 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is "offense specific," and once invoked, does not automatically apply to all future charges.

  8. New York v. Quarles

    467 U.S. 649 (1984)   Cited 1,575 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant to determining the applicability of the public safety exception to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694

  9. Pennsylvania v. Muniz

    496 U.S. 582 (1990)   Cited 1,151 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an officer did not interrogate a suspect by asking him to take a breathalyzer test and explaining the legal consequences of refusing

  10. Oregon v. Bradshaw

    462 U.S. 1039 (1983)   Cited 1,233 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant can negate his earlier invocation of his Miranda rights by initiating a conversation

  11. Section 28

    Cal. Const. art. I § 28   Cited 2,118 times
    Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"

  12. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or