§Why CasetextPricing

FACEBOOK v. S.C.

Real Party in Interest, Lee Sullivan, Petition for Review

78 Cited authorities

  1. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 43,302 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

  2. Holmes v. South Carolina

    547 U.S. 319 (2006)   Cited 1,897 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a rule that categorically barred evidence of third-party guilt when strong forensic evidence of the defendant's guilt was presented "is arbitrary in the sense that it does not rationally serve the end that ... [it was] designed to further"

  3. California v. Trombetta

    467 U.S. 479 (1984)   Cited 4,131 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Constitution does not require the state to preserve a breath sample used in a breath-analysis test in a DUI prosecution

  4. Crane v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 683 (1986)   Cited 3,279 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"

  5. Davis v. Alaska

    415 U.S. 308 (1974)   Cited 5,685 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

  6. 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

  7. Rock v. Arkansas

    483 U.S. 44 (1987)   Cited 2,829 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a rule that categorically barred all hypnotically refreshed testimony "is an arbitrary restriction ... in the absence of clear evidence by the State repudiating the validity of all posthypnosis recollections"

  8. United States v. Ruiz

    536 U.S. 622 (2002)   Cited 1,500 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Constitution does not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant" because "impeachment information is special in relation to the fairness of a trial"

  9. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

    480 U.S. 39 (1987)   Cited 2,671 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"

  10. Dowling v. United States

    493 U.S. 342 (1990)   Cited 2,117 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that admission of evidence must be fundamentally unfair to constitute a due process violation

  11. Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

    U.S. Const. amend. VI   Cited 28,093 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

  12. Section Amendment V - Rights of Persons

    U.S. Const. amend. V   Cited 19,272 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment

  13. Section 2701 - Unlawful access to stored communications

    18 U.S.C. § 2701   Cited 1,322 times   135 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any person who "intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided ... and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage"

  14. Section 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records

    18 U.S.C. § 2703   Cited 1,201 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that these providers "shall disclose" such information "when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute"

  15. Section 1524 - Grounds for search warrant

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1524   Cited 134 times
    Noting that "[t]he property" listed in a search warrant "may be taken on the warrant from any place"

  16. Section 1523 - Search warrant

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1523   Cited 52 times

    A search warrant is an order in writing, in the name of the people, signed by a magistrate, directed to a peace officer, commanding him or her to search for a person or persons, a thing or things, or personal property, and, in the case of a thing or things or personal property, bring the same before the magistrate. Ca. Pen. Code § 1523 Amended by Stats. 1996, Ch. 1078, Sec. 1.5. Effective January 1, 1997.

  17. Rule 8.490 - Filing, finality, and modification of decisions; rehearing; remittitur

    Cal. R. 8.490   Cited 1,043 times

    (a)Filing and modification of decisions Rule 8.264(a) and (c) govern the filing and modification of decisions in writ proceedings. (b)Finality of decision (1) Except as otherwise ordered by the court, the following decisions regarding petitions for writs within the court's original jurisdiction are final in the issuing court when filed: (A) An order denying or dismissing such a petition without issuance of an alternative writ, order to show cause, or writ of review; and (B) An order denying or dismissing

  18. 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