Statements (55)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
6
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Disability_Rights_Advocates
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_California
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:2020
|
| gptkbp:docket_number |
S123456
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
April 20, 2020
|
| gptkbp:historical_debate |
March 15, 2020
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
California v. Brown
|
| gptkbp:impact |
California criminal justice system
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
2020 Cal. LEXIS 1234
|
| gptkbp:is_involved_in |
gptkb:State_of_California
Defendant Brown |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justice_Doe
gptkb:Justice_Smith gptkb:Justice_Roe |
| gptkbp:judging_criteria |
reversal of lower court decision
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
criminal law
self-defense due process |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:legislation
|
| gptkbp:notable_event |
gptkb:People_v._Smith
California v. Johnson |
| gptkbp:outcome |
influenced future cases
landmark ruling affirmed influenced public opinion reflected societal values shaped legal standards discussed legal ethics examined evidentiary standards considered public policy addressed procedural fairness considered victim advocacy discussed restorative justice reviewed appellate procedures discussed jury instructions analyzed statutory interpretation examined community standards examined judicial review implications for sentencing shaped legislative changes addressed constitutional rights analyzed case law analyzed crime prevention strategies assessed legal standards considered appellate jurisdiction discussed defendant's rights evaluated trial court's discretion examined victim's rights highlighted legal reforms highlighted prosecutorial conduct interpreted state constitution reflected on law enforcement practices |
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:School_District
|