49 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 14,484 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an absent witness's statements are admissible under the Confrontation Clause "only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant [] had a prior opportunity to cross-examine"
  2. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 69,256 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court must presume trier of fact resolved all inferences in favor of the prosecution "even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record"
  3. Davis v. Washington

    547 U.S. 813 (2006)   Cited 3,837 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 2,935 times   44 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 4,290 times   15 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 5,152 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 5,209 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Mississippi voucher and hearsay rules were unconstitutional as applied to the extent that they prevented the defendant from: putting on evidence of a third party's confession to the crime with which the defendant was charged and challenging that witness's subsequent retraction
  8. Pointer v. Texas

    380 U.S. 400 (1965)   Cited 3,995 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”
  9. People v. Albillar

    51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 1,347 times
    Holding that "if substantial evidence establishes that the defendant intended to and did commit the charged felony with known members of a gang, the jury may fairly infer that the defendant had the specific intent to promote, further, or assist criminal conduct by those gang members"
  10. People v. Bolin

    18 Cal.4th 297 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 2,095 times
    Holding that defendant's act of retrieving gun after arguing with victim supported finding that murder was premeditated
  11. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 2,663 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 222 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