64 Cited authorities

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services
436 U.S. 658 (1978) Cited 66,814 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that "local government . . . are 'persons'" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Schlup v. Delo
513 U.S. 298 (1995) Cited 17,979 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that the actual innocence standard requires a petitioner "to make a stronger showing than that needed to establish prejudice" under Strickland
Papasan v. Allain
478 U.S. 265 (1986) Cited 16,628 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts
557 U.S. 305 (2009) Cited 3,542 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial
U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez
548 U.S. 140 (2006) Cited 2,091 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice does not require showing prejudice
Old Chief v. United States
519 U.S. 172 (1997) Cited 3,023 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court had abused its discretion in admitting the record of conviction when the defendant in that case offered to stipulate to a prior felony conviction
Cuyler v. Sullivan
446 U.S. 335 (1980) Cited 5,702 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that prejudice is presumed when a defendant establishes his attorney operated under an actual conflict of interest arising from concurrent representation of multiple clients which adversely affected the attorney's performance
Wheat v. United States
486 U.S. 153 (1988) Cited 2,372 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding in multiple-representation cases, a district court must help protect criminal defendants against counsel’s conflict of interest
Huddleston v. United States
485 U.S. 681 (1988) Cited 2,347 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that under Rule 104(b), the "court simply examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact . . . by a preponderance of the evidence"
U.S. v. Marcus
560 U.S. 258 (2010) Cited 881 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process is violated "if the jury ... was not instructed about [a criminal statute's] enactment date" and convicts a defendant for "noncriminal, preenactment conduct"
Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
Fed. R. Evid. 803 Cited 12,640 times 85 Legal Analyses
Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

The People, Respondent,v.Paul Cortez, Appellant.

64 Cited authorities

Holding that "local government . . . are 'persons'" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Holding that the actual innocence standard requires a petitioner "to make a stronger showing than that needed to establish prejudice" under Strickland

Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"

Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

Holding that a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice does not require showing prejudice

Holding that the district court had abused its discretion in admitting the record of conviction when the defendant in that case offered to stipulate to a prior felony conviction

Holding that prejudice is presumed when a defendant establishes his attorney operated under an actual conflict of interest arising from concurrent representation of multiple clients which adversely affected the attorney's performance

Holding in multiple-representation cases, a district court must help protect criminal defendants against counsel’s conflict of interest

Holding that under Rule 104(b), the "court simply examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact . . . by a preponderance of the evidence"

Holding that due process is violated "if the jury ... was not instructed about [a criminal statute's] enactment date" and convicts a defendant for "noncriminal, preenactment conduct"

Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities