11 Cited authorities

  1. Wainwright v. Witt

    469 U.S. 412 (1985)   Cited 3,055 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a court was only required to decide when prospective jurors could not be excluded, it was unnecessary for the court to decide when jurors could be excluded
  2. Lockhart v. McCree

    476 U.S. 162 (1986)   Cited 1,298 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fair cross-section requirement applies to jury pool not petit jury
  3. Uttecht v. Brown

    551 U.S. 1 (2007)   Cited 394 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that juror's answers "on their face" permitted trial court to strike juror for cause, when juror "stated six times that he could consider the death penalty or follow the law" but interspersed those statements with "more equivocal" ones about how he would have to give it "some thought"
  4. People v. Jenkins

    22 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 992 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it was not error to refuse to permit counsel to ask questions based upon an account of the facts of this case, or to ask a juror to consider particular facts that would cause him or her to impose the death penalty," because "`The Witherspoon-Witt voir dire seeks to determine only the views of the prospective jurors about capital punishment in the abstract. . . . The inquiry is directed to whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an "open mind" on the penalty determination.'"
  5. People v. McWhorter

    47 Cal.4th 318 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 355 times
    In McWhorter, the defendant was convicted of robbery and two murders (id. at p. 324), and he challenged his parole revocation restitution fine on the same grounds as Roach.
  6. People v. Stewart

    33 Cal.4th 425 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 288 times
    Explaining that to demonstrate interference with right to compulsory process, defendant must show "causal link" between prosecution intimidation and witness's refusal to testify
  7. People v. Carasi

    44 Cal.4th 1263 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 251 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Carasi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1263, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 190 P.3d 616, we found forfeiture where the defendant had exercised a peremptory challenge to remove the prospective juror in question, had exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, and had asked "for more" peremptory challenges. (Id., at p. 1290, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 190 P.3d 616.)
  8. People v. Leon

    61 Cal.4th 569 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 193 times
    In People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 588-589, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 703, 352 P.3d 289 (Leon), the entire voir dire of nearly every potential juror consisted of four questions addressing the Witt death-qualification standard.
  9. People v. DeSantis

    2 Cal.4th 1198 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 293 times
    In People v. DeSantis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1198, defendant challenged a lineup because he was wearing a red or orange shirt and the witness remembered the suspect as wearing a red jacket.
  10. People v. Robinson

    37 Cal.4th 592 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 175 times
    Permitting the introduction of penalty-phase victim impact evidence as a “circumstance of the crime” under California Penal Code Ann. § 190.3 factor (West 2008)
  11. Section 800 - Lay witness opinion testimony

    Cal. Evid. Code § 800   Cited 343 times
    Requiring lay opinion testimony be "[h]elpful to a clear understanding of testimony"