71 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,640 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 20,324 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,354 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,396 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,882 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"
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts
557 U.S. 305 (2009) Cited 3,613 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,726 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,365 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Miller-El v. Dretke
545 U.S. 231 (2005) Cited 2,738 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prosecutor “would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions” if he truly considered a race-neutral characteristic grounds for a peremptory strike
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970) Cited 11,738 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Section 459 - Burglary
Cal. Pen. Code § 459 Cited 12,037 times 4 Legal Analyses
Providing that a "person who enters" certain locations "with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary"
Section 2 - Effective date
Cal. Pen. Code § 2 Cited 669 times
Amending § 3000.08

PEOPLE v. EDWARDS (ROBERT)

71 Cited authorities

Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements

Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

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

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

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Holding that a prosecutor “would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions” if he truly considered a race-neutral characteristic grounds for a peremptory strike

Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Providing that a "person who enters" certain locations "with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary"

Amending § 3000.08