13 Cited authorities

Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,269 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Engle v. Isaac
456 U.S. 107 (1982) Cited 6,353 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding burden to demonstrate cause and prejudice is far "greater than the showing required to establish plain error on direct appeal"
Morris v. Slappy
461 U.S. 1 (1983) Cited 2,253 times
Holding that Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not guarantee "meaningful relationship" with counsel
United States v. Nobles
422 U.S. 225 (1975) Cited 2,133 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's attempt to make testimonial use of work product materials at criminal trial waived protection
United States v. Mechanik
475 U.S. 66 (1986) Cited 1,263 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the petit jury's verdict rendered harmless any [Rule 6(d)] error in the [grand jury's] charging decision"
People v. Johnson
26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980) Cited 4,471 times
Holding that an attorney may not waive a defendant's right to a speedy trial to accommodate the interests of other clients rather than benefit the defendant
Price v. Superior Court (People)
25 Cal.4th 1046 (Cal. 2001) Cited 858 times
Having district attorney testify why he offered witness immunity “may well raise” a meritorious vouching claim
People v. Gordon
50 Cal.3d 1223 (Cal. 1990) Cited 370 times
Finding the high court's reasoning in Ross persuasive and "applicable to the state constitutional analogues to the federal constitutional rights" to due process and an impartial jury considered in Ross
People v. Hill
3 Cal.4th 959 (Cal. 1992) Cited 305 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting argument that delay inherent in capital appeals process constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
People v. Turner
96 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 201 times
Finding this issue "settled" and reaffirming that the criminal laboratory analysis fee is a fine.

PEOPLE v. GRIMES (GARY LEE)

13 Cited authorities

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

Holding burden to demonstrate cause and prejudice is far "greater than the showing required to establish plain error on direct appeal"

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

Holding that counsel's attempt to make testimonial use of work product materials at criminal trial waived protection

Holding that "the petit jury's verdict rendered harmless any [Rule 6(d)] error in the [grand jury's] charging decision"

Holding that an attorney may not waive a defendant's right to a speedy trial to accommodate the interests of other clients rather than benefit the defendant

Having district attorney testify why he offered witness immunity “may well raise” a meritorious vouching claim

Finding the high court's reasoning in Ross persuasive and "applicable to the state constitutional analogues to the federal constitutional rights" to due process and an impartial jury considered in Ross

Rejecting argument that delay inherent in capital appeals process constitutes cruel and unusual punishment

Finding this issue "settled" and reaffirming that the criminal laboratory analysis fee is a fine.