8 California opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2013(People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 750, 754-755, 760-762 .) A federal claim of unreasonable preindictment delay is determined under a Fifth Amendment due process analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2001(Jones v. United States (1999) 526 U.S. 227, 243, fn. 6 [ 119 S.Ct. 1215, 1224 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 ].) Defendant accepts that if the two section 667.5 enhancements involved merely “prior convictions,” there would be no federal jury trial right and no corresponding duty to secure a personal waiver of that privilege. 2001(Jones v. United States (1999) 526 U.S. 227, 243, fn. 6 [ 119 S.Ct. 1215, 1224 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 ].) Defendant accepts that if the two section 667.5 enhancements involved merely “prior convictions,” there would be no federal jury trial right and no corresponding duty to secure a personal waiver of that privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Landgraf v. USI Film Productsgreen2 sentences1999(Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994) 511 U.S. 244, 265 [ 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497 , 128 L.Ed.2d 229 ] [“[T]he ‘maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used.’ ”]; R. 1999(Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994) 511 U.S. 244, 265 [ 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497 , 128 L.Ed.2d 229 ] [“[T]he ‘maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used.’ ”]; R. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernalgreen2 sentences1990(United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, supra, 458 U.S. at p. 873 [ 73 L.Ed.2d at p. 1206 ].) Valenzuela-Bernal was derived with respect to the difficult, but not impossible, task of trying to show what testimony the deported witnesses could have contributed to the defendant’s cause. 1990(United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, supra, 458 U.S. at p. 873 [ 73 L.Ed.2d at p. 1206 ].) Valenzuela-Bernal was derived with respect to the difficult, but not impossible, task of trying to show what testimony the deported witnesses could have contributed to the defendant’s cause. | 1 | 1 |
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wonggreen2 sentences1983On the federal level the lack of uniformity is understandable in light of repeated statements such as: "The States and the Federal Government are free to abolish guilty pleas and plea bargaining; but absent such action, as the Constitution has been construed in our cases, it is not forbidden to extend a proper degree of leniency in return for guilty pleas." ( Corbitt v. New Jersey (1978) 439 U.S. 212, 223 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 466, 477 , 99 S.Ct. 492 ].) Generally, unless there is an overriding national interest, equal protection is implied in the Fifth Amendment due process clause. ( Hampton v. Mow Su 1983On the federal level the lack of uniformity is understandable in light of repeated statements such as: "The States and the Federal Government are free to abolish guilty pleas and plea bargaining; but absent such action, as the Constitution has been construed in our cases, it is not forbidden to extend a proper degree of leniency in return for guilty pleas." ( Corbitt v. New Jersey (1978) 439 U.S. 212, 223 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 466, 477 , 99 S.Ct. 492 ].) Generally, unless there is an overriding national interest, equal protection is implied in the Fifth Amendment due process clause. ( Hampton v. Mow Su | 1 | 1 |
Corbitt v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences1983On the federal level the lack of uniformity is understandable in light of repeated statements such as: “The States and the Federal Government are free to abolish guilty pleas and plea bargaining; but absent such action, as the Constitution has been construed in our cases, it is not forbidden to extend a proper degree of leniency in return for guilty pleas.” (Corbitt v. New Jersey (1978) 439 U.S. 212, 223 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 466, 477 , 99 S.Ct. 492 ].) Generally, unless there is an overriding national interest, equal protection is implied in the Fifth Amendment due process clause. 1983On the federal level the lack of uniformity is understandable in light of repeated statements such as: “The States and the Federal Government are free to abolish guilty pleas and plea bargaining; but absent such action, as the Constitution has been construed in our cases, it is not forbidden to extend a proper degree of leniency in return for guilty pleas.” (Corbitt v. New Jersey (1978) 439 U.S. 212, 223 [ 58 L.Ed.2d 466, 477 , 99 S.Ct. 492 ].) Generally, unless there is an overriding national interest, equal protection is implied in the Fifth Amendment due process clause. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nationgreen2 sentences1980(People v. Nation (1980) 26 Cal.3d 169, 181-182 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 299 , 604 P.2d 1051 ].) A single person showup is not inherently unfair. 1980(People v. Nation (1980) 26 Cal.3d 169, 181-182 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 299 , 604 P.2d 1051 ].) A single person showup is not inherently unfair. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Gaudin
green
1 sentence2016Rather, she contends we should essentially delegate our section 1260 authority to the People, who may elect, in her view, to retry defendant for the greater offense or to accept 7 The Fifth Amendment due process clause and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial require that a criminal conviction must “rest upon a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” (United States v. Gaudin (1995) 515 U.S. 506, 510 .) As stated in People v. Eid, supra, 59 Cal.4th at page 659 , a reviewing court “has no direct fact | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Eid
green
1 sentence2016Rather, she contends we should essentially delegate our section 1260 authority to the People, who may elect, in her view, to retry defendant for the greater offense or to accept 7 The Fifth Amendment due process clause and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial require that a criminal conviction must “rest upon a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.” (United States v. Gaudin (1995) 515 U.S. 506, 510 .) As stated in People v. Eid, supra, 59 Cal.4th at page 659 , a reviewing court “has no direct fact | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. John Voigt
green
1 sentence2006Synthesizing the federal decisions cited ante, we conclude that in order to make out a Fifth Amendment due process violation against the government for obtaining a search warrant based on privileged lawyer-client information, a criminal defendant must show that: (1) the government objectively knew a lawyer-client relationship existed between the defendant and its informant; (2) the government deliberately intruded into that relationship; and (3) the defendant was prejudiced as a result. ( Kennedy, supra, 225 F.3d at pp. 1194-1195.) That the police are mere passive recipients of privileged info | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Daniel A. White and Judith A. White
green
1 sentence2006Synthesizing the federal decisions cited ante, we conclude that in order to make out a Fifth Amendment due process violation against the government for obtaining a search warrant based on privileged lawyer-client information, a criminal defendant must show that: (1) the government objectively knew a lawyer-client relationship existed between the defendant and its informant; (2) the government deliberately intruded into that relationship; and (3) the defendant was prejudiced as a result. ( Kennedy, supra, 225 F.3d at pp. 1194-1195.) That the police are mere passive recipients of privileged info | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. William H. Melcher, Acting Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
green
1 sentence2006(Lee v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2001) 250 F.3d 668, 687 ; Morgan v. Woessner (9th Cir. 1993) 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 .) Our review of the evidence given both in camera and in open court shows no government misconduct here. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Lee v. City Of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2006(Lee v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2001) 250 F.3d 668, 687 ; Morgan v. Woessner (9th Cir. 1993) 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 .) Our review of the evidence given both in camera and in open court shows no government misconduct here. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
red
1 sentence2001Consequently, neither the statute nor the Constitution requires the Government to charge the factor that it mentions, an earlier conviction, in the indictment.” (Almendarez-Torres v. United States, supra, 523 U.S. at pp. 226-227 [ 118 S.Ct. at p. 1222 ].) In Almendarez-Torres , the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the prior conviction constituted an element of the crime which the Fifth Amendment due process clause required to be alleged in the indictment. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Leroy Jackson
green
1 sentence1983For example: "In our opinion each individual judge is free to decide whether, and to what degree, he will entertain plea bargains, and his refusal to consider any plea bargaining whatsoever will not vitiate a guilty plea which has otherwise been knowingly and voluntarily entered." ( United States v. Jackson (4th Cir.1977) 563 F.2d 1145, 1148 .) In California, plea bargaining is controlled as to "how" (§ 1192.5), and "when" (the suggestion in the standard and the various requirements of local rules). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.