39 Cited authorities

  1. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 22,360 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  2. Delaware v. Van Arsdall

    475 U.S. 673 (1986)   Cited 6,888 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
  3. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 5,005 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
  4. Sullivan v. Louisiana

    508 U.S. 275 (1993)   Cited 3,122 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "
  5. O'Neal v. McAninch

    513 U.S. 432 (1995)   Cited 1,751 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 2254 “requires a causal link between the violation and the custody”
  6. Rose v. Clark

    478 U.S. 570 (1986)   Cited 1,738 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an unconstitutional instruction regarding malice in a murder case was subject to harmless-error analysis
  7. Tison v. Arizona

    481 U.S. 137 (1987)   Cited 1,237 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement"
  8. Satterwhite v. Texas

    486 U.S. 249 (1988)   Cited 624 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when the prejudice from a Sixth Amendment violation is "limited to the admission into evidence of [the mental health] testimony," harmless error analysis applies
  9. Olden v. Kentucky

    488 U.S. 227 (1988)   Cited 502 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that confrontation clause violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in part because it concerned the limitation of cross-examination of the prosecution's key witness
  10. People v. Alvarez

    14 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 1,339 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the omission of CALJIC No. 3.31 with regard to the charge of murder did not require reversal because the murder instructions "substantially covered" the concept of concurrence of act and specific intent