People v. Badgett

5 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. SMITH

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed May 29, 2008

    There is no dangerthat through the testimony ofa third party, the burden of proof imposed onthe state will be lightened.” (People v. Badgett, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 347.) With the instant issue, Smith bears the burden of demonstrating that somehow Mr. Holloway wascoercedinto providing false testimony at Smith’s trial, rendering the reliability of his trial proceedings in doubt.

  2. PEOPLE v. McCURDY

    Appellant’s Opening Brief Argument VIII

    Filed July 13, 2006

    ) In so holding,this | Court emphasized that where the statementat issue was madebya third party (as opposedto the defendant), the sole concern is the reliability of the statement. (See People v. Badgett, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 347-348.) It followslogically, then, that wherethe record reveals indicia of the ° The trial court failed to address the reliability of Bales’s statements independently ofthe issue ofpotential coercion.

  3. BENAVIDES FIGUEROA

    Petitioner’s Reply to Informal Response

    Filed December 21, 2012

    Testimony of third parties that is offered at trial must be excluded when a defendant demonstrates that improper coercion has impaired the reliability of the testimony. People v. Badgett, 10 Cal. 4th at 348. In order to state a claim of violation of his due process rights, a defendant must also allege that the pretrial coercion was such that it would actually affect the reliability of the evidence to be presented at trial.

  4. PEOPLE v. LOPEZ

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed September 13, 2010

    Plenary review is appropriate in cases in which the reviewing court is called upon to determine whether a defendant has been deprivedofa fair trial based on the improper admission of evidence. (See, e.g., Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 643 [whether prosecutor’s remarks in closing argument violated due process]; People v. Badgett, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 350 [claim of coerced statements of third party reviewed de novo for due process violation]; People v. Sully (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1195, 1216-1218 [whetherthird party immunity agreement was coercive and admission deprived defendantof fair trial]; Wilcox v. Ford (11th Cir. 1987) 813 F.2d 1140, 1148, fn. 15 [same].) Appellant’s convictions, which rest on the unreliable testimony and statements of Sabra and Michael Jr., violate due process.

  5. PEOPLE v. SANDOVAL (RAMON JR.)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed July 12, 2010

    By improperly relying on this extrajudicial fact finding to deny challenged if it was obtained under circumstances rendering it so unreliable that its admission would violate the defendant’s due process rights. This court has held that the right to exclude such statementsis solely a trial right. (People v. Badgett (1995) 10 Cal.4th 330, 342-352.) Other courts have given more expansive treatmentto the right. (Clanton v. Cooper (10" Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 1147, 1157-1158.