Statements (53)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
appeal
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
trial procedures
evidence handling appeal rights sentencing reforms |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:California_Court_of_Appeal
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:2020
|
| gptkbp:exhibited_at |
forensic evidence
witness testimony expert testimony documentary evidence physical evidence |
| gptkbp:historical_debate |
insufficient evidence
ineffective assistance of counsel misconduct by prosecution |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
People v. Hurst
|
| gptkbp:impact |
appeal process
criminal justice reform prosecutorial discretion defendant rights case law development |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
2020 WL 1234567
|
| gptkbp:is_involved_in |
People of the State of California
Defendant Hurst |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Judge_Lee
gptkb:Judge_Smith Judge Johnson |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:California
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:double_jeopardy
criminal law fair trial due process burden of proof evidence admissibility credibility of witnesses sufficient evidence legal standards met |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:legislation
|
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
public interest
extensive coverage legal analysis |
| gptkbp:notable_event |
gptkb:People_v._Smith
gptkb:People_v._Jones |
| gptkbp:outcome |
reversed
precedent for future cases remanded for retrial |
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:School_District
|
| gptkbp:public_perception |
high-profile case
controversial case |
| gptkbp:significance |
impact on sentencing guidelines
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_Colorado
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
7
|