55 Cited authorities

Burks v. United States
437 U.S. 1 (1978) Cited 3,833 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding the trial court is "not to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses when it judges the merits of a motion for acquittal"
Arizona v. Washington
434 U.S. 497 (1978) Cited 1,826 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge's failure to make an explicit finding of manifest necessity does not render the declaration of a mistrial constitutionally defective when the basis for that determination is adequately disclosed by the record
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
Ohio v. Johnson
467 U.S. 493 (1984) Cited 1,195 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of more serious crimes when defendant pleaded to less serious crimes
Russell v. United States
369 U.S. 749 (1962) Cited 1,837 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an indictment may not be "amended except by resubmission to the grand jury"
People v. Holt
15 Cal.4th 619 (Cal. 1997) Cited 1,873 times
Holding that the failure to record statements did not violate the due process clause of either the state or federal constitution
Richardson v. United States
468 U.S. 317 (1984) Cited 707 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy" and that "[r]egardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at petitioner's first trial, he has no valid double jeopardy claim to prevent his retrial"
State v. Russo
25 Cal.4th 1124 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,100 times
Holding a "jury need not agree on a / / / specific overt act as long as it unanimously finds beyond a reasonable doubt that some conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy"
People v. Reed
38 Cal.4th 1224 (Cal. 2006) Cited 919 times
Holding that only the elements test, and not the accusative pleading test, is appropriate for determining what qualifies as a lesser included offense
People v. Flood
18 Cal.4th 470 (Cal. 1998) Cited 1,059 times
Concluding that harmless error analysis rather than automatic reversal is required where jury instruction removed an element from jury consideration because, among other things, the element was established by "overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence"
Section 14
Cal. Const. art. I § 14 Cited 385 times
Establishing the right to felony arraignment "without unnecessary delay"

PEOPLE v. GOOLSBY

55 Cited authorities

Holding the trial court is "not to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses when it judges the merits of a motion for acquittal"

Holding that a trial judge's failure to make an explicit finding of manifest necessity does not render the declaration of a mistrial constitutionally defective when the basis for that determination is adequately disclosed by the record

Holding that defendant's act of retrieving gun after arguing with victim supported finding that murder was premeditated

Holding double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of more serious crimes when defendant pleaded to less serious crimes

Holding that an indictment may not be "amended except by resubmission to the grand jury"

Holding that the failure to record statements did not violate the due process clause of either the state or federal constitution

Holding that "the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy" and that "[r]egardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at petitioner's first trial, he has no valid double jeopardy claim to prevent his retrial"

Holding a "jury need not agree on a / / / specific overt act as long as it unanimously finds beyond a reasonable doubt that some conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy"

Holding that only the elements test, and not the accusative pleading test, is appropriate for determining what qualifies as a lesser included offense

Concluding that harmless error analysis rather than automatic reversal is required where jury instruction removed an element from jury consideration because, among other things, the element was established by "overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence"

Establishing the right to felony arraignment "without unnecessary delay"