39 Cited authorities

Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,457 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 7,272 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,281 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
Sullivan v. Louisiana
508 U.S. 275 (1993) Cited 3,276 times 14 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’ "
O'Neal v. McAninch
513 U.S. 432 (1995) Cited 1,854 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 2254 “requires a causal link between the violation and the custody”
Rose v. Clark
478 U.S. 570 (1986) Cited 1,808 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an unconstitutional instruction regarding malice in a murder case was subject to harmless-error analysis
Tison v. Arizona
481 U.S. 137 (1987) Cited 1,345 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the reckless disregard for human life implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death represents a highly culpable mental state"
Satterwhite v. Texas
486 U.S. 249 (1988) Cited 646 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
Olden v. Kentucky
488 U.S. 227 (1988) Cited 524 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
People v. Alvarez
14 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 1996) Cited 1,373 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

PEOPLE v. GRIMES

39 Cited authorities

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 involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

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’ "

Holding that § 2254 “requires a causal link between the violation and the custody”

Holding that an unconstitutional instruction regarding malice in a murder case was subject to harmless-error analysis

Holding "that the reckless disregard for human life implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death represents a highly culpable mental state"

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

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

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