Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
Robins, in which "free speech" rights beyond those addressed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution were found in the California Constitution by the California courts. [3] One of California's most significant prohibitions is against "cruel or unusual punishment," a stronger prohibition than the U.S. Constitution's Eighth ...
This means that California adheres to an arcane distinction between what constitutes pleading of a mere "fact", versus an "ultimate fact", versus a "conclusion of law". [4] California is one of two states, the other being Virginia, which uses the demurrer as the primary pre-answer attack on the complaint. Most states and the federal courts have ...
Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Its decision is part of a long line of cases that eventually led to the Selective Incorporation Doctrine.
In addition to notice pleading, a minority of states (e.g., California) use an intermediate system known as code pleading. Code pleading is an older system than notice pleading and is based on legislative statute. It tends to straddle the gulf between obsolete common-law pleading and modern notice pleading.
California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term.
Section 28 introduced a "right to truth in evidence". This means that state courts cannot exclude any "relevant evidence" even if gathered in a manner that violates the rights of the accused. The U.S. Constitution takes priority over the California constitution so courts may still be obliged to exclude evidence under the federal Bill of Rights.
California (1884), the Supreme Court held that the Grand Jury Clause was not incorporated to apply to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. [20] If the grand jury right attaches, every element of the charged crime must be submitted to the grand jury. [21] Thus, the prosecution cannot augment the indictment without returning to a grand jury. [22]