105 Cited authorities

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
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,244 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
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"
Miller-El v. Dretke
545 U.S. 231 (2005) Cited 2,699 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prosecutor “would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions” if he truly considered a race-neutral characteristic grounds for a peremptory strike
Johnson v. California
545 U.S. 162 (2005) Cited 1,391 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 and Batson standards are different, and that the less demanding Batson standard controls
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
Zant v. Stephens
462 U.S. 862 (1983) Cited 1,725 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an aggravating circumstance must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty"
People v. Cole
33 Cal.4th 1158 (Cal. 2004) Cited 2,232 times
Finding defendant's statements following an attack on his wife to be probative of an intent to torture
People v. Williams
16 Cal.4th 153 (Cal. 1997) Cited 2,322 times
Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gang evidence, including testimony that the defendant led a meeting between two gangs where they planned to kill rival gang members
People v. Avila
38 Cal.4th 491 (Cal. 2006) Cited 1,575 times
Holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to the defendants having recently been in prison, and the trial court admonished the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted

PEOPLE v. HARRIS (WILLIE)

105 Cited authorities

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

Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that a prosecutor “would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions” if he truly considered a race-neutral characteristic grounds for a peremptory strike

Holding that the People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 and Batson standards are different, and that the less demanding Batson standard controls

Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied

Holding that "an aggravating circumstance must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty"

Finding defendant's statements following an attack on his wife to be probative of an intent to torture

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gang evidence, including testimony that the defendant led a meeting between two gangs where they planned to kill rival gang members

Holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to the defendants having recently been in prison, and the trial court admonished the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted