127 Cited authorities

Liteky v. United States
510 U.S. 540 (1994) Cited 7,663 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a judge's impatience and annoyance did not justify disqualification
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,516 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,575 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,302 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
Bracy v. Gramley
520 U.S. 899 (1997) Cited 3,035 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a constitutional floor, not a uniform standard" and noting the existence of many laws that legislate above that constitutional minimum
Crane v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 683 (1986) Cited 3,288 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"
McKaskle v. Wiggins
465 U.S. 168 (1984) Cited 2,461 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that pro se defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel
Morris v. Slappy
461 U.S. 1 (1983) Cited 2,259 times
Holding that Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not guarantee "meaningful relationship" with counsel
Montana v. Egelhoff
518 U.S. 37 (1996) Cited 1,309 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the exclusion of even relevant evidence does not violate due process unless it implicates a "fundamental principle of justice"
People v. Doolin
45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009) Cited 3,879 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied

PEOPLE v. JOHNSON

127 Cited authorities

Holding that a judge's impatience and annoyance did not justify disqualification

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

Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Holding that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a constitutional floor, not a uniform standard" and noting the existence of many laws that legislate above that constitutional minimum

Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"

Holding that pro se defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel

Holding that Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not guarantee "meaningful relationship" with counsel

Holding that the exclusion of even relevant evidence does not violate due process unless it implicates a "fundamental principle of justice"

Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied