§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ

Appellant’s Petition for Review

51 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,394 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

  2. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,568 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  3. Davis v. Washington

    547 U.S. 813 (2006)   Cited 4,794 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

  4. Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts

    557 U.S. 305 (2009)   Cited 3,545 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

  5. Ohio v. Roberts

    448 U.S. 56 (1980)   Cited 4,630 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the question of good-faith effort is a question of reasonableness, and a prosecutor is not required to do a futile act

  6. Davis v. Alaska

    415 U.S. 308 (1974)   Cited 5,684 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

  7. Chambers v. Mississippi

    410 U.S. 284 (1973)   Cited 5,976 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable

  8. Williams v. Illinois

    567 U.S. 50 (2012)   Cited 974 times
    Holding that a DNA matching process is not testimonial

  9. Pointer v. Texas

    380 U.S. 400 (1965)   Cited 4,289 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment”

  10. People v. Bolin

    18 Cal.4th 297 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,658 times
    Holding that defendant's act of retrieving gun after arguing with victim supported finding that murder was premeditated

  11. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 4,701 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

  12. 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