Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

PG VII(D)  Successes On Federal Habeas. 

The fact that federal habeas review is a viable recourse for state litigants is demonstrated by instruction cases in which relief was granted.  In Alvares v. Rowland (C-90-20664-WAI) relief was granted on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds.  (See SDAP Newsletter, March-June 1992, pp. 3-4.)  In Cramer v. Aisturo (CV-91-1030-JMI (JR)) the Central District federal court granted relief on a Farretta issue.  Although these cases did not involve instructional error, an order to show cause was granted by the Northern District federal court in Juarez v. Rowland (C-91-20353 JW) in May 1992 on an instructional issue regarding concurrence of act and intent.  Also an OSC was granted by the Eastern District of California in Caswell v. Calderon (CIV-S-91-1079 WBS) on the issue of constitutional error from the absence of a Beeman instruction on aiding and abetting.  In Hollis v. Gomez (CIV-90-0904 GEB) the Eastern District Court held that refusal of defendant’s entrapment instruction required reversal per se.  Hence, there is recourse for abridgement of federal constitutional rights including those associated with jury instructions and, therefore, it is important that these issues be preserved at trial and during the state appellate process.  In Suniga v. Bunnell (9th Cir. 1993) 998 F2d 664, the court held, on federal habeas, that instruction upon felony murder in violation of the Ireland rule (People v. Ireland (69) 70 C2d 522, 539 [75 CR 188],) was reversible even though the erroneous legal theory was not argued by the prosecutor and the evidence of malice was “very strong.”  A harmless error determination cannot be based on “the seemingly overwhelming weight of the evidence” pointing to guilt when it is impossible to tell which theory of culpability the jury followed in reaching a general verdict.           

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES