167 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,880 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,311 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Liteky v. United States
510 U.S. 540 (1994) Cited 7,653 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 23,491 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,290 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
Mickens v. Taylor
535 U.S. 162 (2002) Cited 1,863 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that he denial of habeas relief must be affirmed where petitioner fails "to establish that the conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel's performance"
Lockett v. Ohio
438 U.S. 586 (1978) Cited 3,737 times 53 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Ohio death penalty statute, which required imposition of the death penalty once a defendant was found guilty of aggravated murder with at least one of seven specified aggravating factors, unless one of three specified mitigating factors was established by a preponderance of the evidence, violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the statute limited the range of mitigating factors that the sentencer could consider
Henderson v. Kibbe
431 U.S. 145 (1977) Cited 2,914 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that in considering a habeas claim based on an improper jury instruction, courts must ask "whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process, not merely whether the instruction is undesirable [or] erroneous"
Montana v. Egelhoff
518 U.S. 37 (1996) Cited 1,306 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 3,874 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. NGUYEN (LAM THANH)

167 Cited authorities

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

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 “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

Holding that he denial of habeas relief must be affirmed where petitioner fails "to establish that the conflict of interest adversely affected his counsel's performance"

Holding that in considering a habeas claim based on an improper jury instruction, courts must ask "whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process, not merely whether the instruction is undesirable [or] erroneous"

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