§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. S.C. (JOHNSON) (and consolidated case)

Interested Entities/Parties, San Francisco Police Department and City and County of San Francisco, Petition for Review

56 Cited authorities

  1. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 7,259 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

  2. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 43,378 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

  3. Giglio v. United States

    405 U.S. 150 (1972)   Cited 12,184 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prosecution must disclose all information or material that may be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses where witness's credibility is "an important issue in the case"

  4. United States v. Agurs

    427 U.S. 97 (1976)   Cited 7,513 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that materiality "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record"

  5. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

    480 U.S. 39 (1987)   Cited 2,674 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"

  6. People v. Superior Court (Romero)

    13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 6,212 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

  7. Youngblood v. West Virginia

    547 U.S. 867 (2006)   Cited 411 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Brady violation occurs "when the government fails to turn over even evidence that is ‘known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor’ "

  8. People v. Mooc

    26 Cal.4th 1216 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,398 times
    Holding the trial court should make a record of the documents it examined before ruling on a Pitchess motion, and can do so by describing the documents on the record

  9. Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc.

    11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,748 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when extrinsic facts eliminate the potential for coverage, an insurer may decline to defend even if the complaint had suggested potential liability

  10. Pitchess v. Superior Court

    11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 2,716 times
    Concluding defendant made a good faith showing in support of his discovery motion where "the information which defendant seeks may have considerable significance to the preparation of his defense, and the documents have been requested with adequate specificity to preclude the possibility that defendant is engaging in a 'fishing expedition' "

  11. 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