71 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,484 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"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 20,085 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 12,279 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 15,288 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 4,830 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 3,574 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 23,561 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 7,302 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 2,712 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 11,667 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 11,934 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 656 times
Amending § 3000.08

PEOPLE v. EDWARDS (ROBERT)

71 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 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