§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. HOPSON

Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

24 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,417 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. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,490 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  3. Sullivan v. Louisiana

    508 U.S. 275 (1993)   Cited 3,282 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

  4. Tennessee v. Street

    471 U.S. 409 (1985)   Cited 775 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-hearsay admissions do not raise "Confrontation Clause concerns"

  5. People v. Hernandez

    33 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,332 times
    Holding the prosecution may utilize expert testimony about gang culture and habits to establish the elements of a gang allegation

  6. Brookhart v. Janis

    384 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 920 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel could not surrender his client's right to plead not guilty and to confront witnesses against him where his client had expressed the desire to plead not guilty in open court

  7. People v. Cowan

    50 Cal.4th 401 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 718 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the witness's prior statement was "inconsistent as to what defendant purportedly said" because "in her statement to [the officer], [she] said defendant admitted killing an elderly couple he had found in a bedroom, while in her trial testimony [she] reported that defendant said only that he would cut [the witness's daughter's] throat"

  8. People v. Carter

    30 Cal.4th 1166 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 864 times
    Holding that trial court must give CALJIC No. 2.71.5 only when defendant requests it

  9. People v. Cage

    40 Cal.4th 965 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 540 times
    Holding victim's identification of his assailant to treating physician who asked victim "what happened" was nontestimonial statement

  10. U.S. v. Cromer

    389 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 502 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[s]tatements ‘made to the authorities who will use them in investigating and prosecuting a crime, ... made with the full understanding that they will be so used,’ are precisely the sort of accusatory statements the Confrontation Clause was designed to address”

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 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