13 Cited authorities

  1. Delaware v. Van Arsdall

    475 U.S. 673 (1986)   Cited 6,216 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to cross-examine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
  2. Engle v. Isaac

    456 U.S. 107 (1982)   Cited 5,355 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that purportedly novel claim is not cause for procedural default where “other defense counsel have perceived and litigated that claim”
  3. Morris v. Slappy

    461 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 1,931 times
    Holding that Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not guarantee "meaningful relationship" with counsel
  4. United States v. Nobles

    422 U.S. 225 (1975)   Cited 1,861 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the common-law attorney work-product privilege is not absolute and may be waived
  5. United States v. Mechanik

    475 U.S. 66 (1986)   Cited 1,087 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding conviction by the petit jury shows there was probable cause and renders harmless lack of probable cause for the indictment
  6. People v. Johnson

    26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 2,666 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
  7. Price v. Superior Court of Riverside County

    25 Cal.4th 1046 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 520 times
    In Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.4th 1046, we concluded that the vicinage right embodied in the Sixth Amendment, which is the right of an "accused... to a... trial... by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law," applies only against the United States and is not incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause for operation against the states.
  8. People v. Gordon

    50 Cal.3d 1223 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 271 times
    In Gordon, as in the present case, the jury requested a reading back of the closing summation of defense counsel, and the trial court indicated it lacked authority to order counsel's summation read back and thus denied the request.
  9. People v. Hill

    3 Cal.4th 959 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 211 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that statements offered to explain declarant's state of mind and conduct, rather than offered to prove truth, are not hearsay
  10. People v. Turner

    96 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 103 times

    C037315 Filed March 22, 2002; opinion following rehearing Certified for Publication Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, No. TF030338A, James Cadle, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Tamara P. Holland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Wanda Hill Rouzan, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff