167 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,414 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,630 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
Wiggins v. Smith
539 U.S. 510 (2003) Cited 9,480 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,290 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,804 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,482 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Darden v. Wainwright
477 U.S. 168 (1986) Cited 6,567 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"
Moran v. Burbine
475 U.S. 412 (1986) Cited 4,088 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted
Ohio v. Roberts
448 U.S. 56 (1980) Cited 4,631 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that the question of good-faith effort is a question of reasonableness, and a prosecutor is not required to do a futile act
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
416 U.S. 637 (1974) Cited 6,217 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because a prosecutor's statement during closing argument was ambiguous, it was not so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of due process
Section 1150 - Inquiry as to validity of verdict
Cal. Evid. Code § 1150 Cited 885 times 1 Legal Analyses
Addressing admissibility of statements made, conduct, conditions, or events "likely to have influenced the verdict improperly" to challenge validity of verdict

PEOPLE v. GONZALES (IVAN)

167 Cited authorities

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"

Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted

Holding that the question of good-faith effort is a question of reasonableness, and a prosecutor is not required to do a futile act

Holding that, because a prosecutor's statement during closing argument was ambiguous, it was not so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of due process

Addressing admissibility of statements made, conduct, conditions, or events "likely to have influenced the verdict improperly" to challenge validity of verdict