23 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,395 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
Hurst v. Florida
577 U.S. 92 (2016) Cited 960 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding Florida's former death penalty sentencing scheme unconstitutional because "[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death"
Glossip v. Gross
576 U.S. 863 (2015) Cited 962 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a three-Justice plurality opinion constituted the “holding” of the Court in Baze v. Rees , 553 U.S. 35, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420, because Justices Scalia and Thomas had concurred in the result reached by the plurality but on “broader” grounds
Wheat v. United States
486 U.S. 153 (1988) Cited 2,372 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding in multiple-representation cases, a district court must help protect criminal defendants against counsel’s conflict of interest
People v. Banks
61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) Cited 1,279 times
Finding insufficient evidence of knowledge of a grave risk of death partly because the defendant did not "knowingly conspire with accomplices known to have killed before"
People v. Rangel
62 Cal.4th 1192 (Cal. 2016) Cited 896 times
Holding that Hurst did not render unconstitutional California's capital sentencing scheme, which utilizes a jury in the fact-finding process
People v. Simon
1 Cal.5th 98 (Cal. 2016) Cited 369 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Simon, we held that CALJIC Nos. 8.84.1 and 8.85 are "sufficient to address a defendant's concerns about the proper use of victim impact evidence, and [are] consistent with his or her federal and state constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and a reliable penalty determination."
People v. Daveggio
4 Cal.5th 790 (Cal. 2018) Cited 273 times
Rejecting similar claim
People v. Grimes
1 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2016) Cited 284 times
Rejecting challenge to CALJIC No. 8.83
People v. Landry
2 Cal.5th 52 (Cal. 2016) Cited 274 times
Holding defendant forfeited Secondary Evidence Rule challenge by not raising it in the trial court

PEOPLE v. GOMEZ

23 Cited authorities

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

Holding Florida's former death penalty sentencing scheme unconstitutional because "[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death"

Holding that a three-Justice plurality opinion constituted the “holding” of the Court in Baze v. Rees , 553 U.S. 35, 128 S.Ct. 1520, 170 L.Ed.2d 420, because Justices Scalia and Thomas had concurred in the result reached by the plurality but on “broader” grounds

Holding in multiple-representation cases, a district court must help protect criminal defendants against counsel’s conflict of interest

Finding insufficient evidence of knowledge of a grave risk of death partly because the defendant did not "knowingly conspire with accomplices known to have killed before"

Holding that Hurst did not render unconstitutional California's capital sentencing scheme, which utilizes a jury in the fact-finding process

In Simon, we held that CALJIC Nos. 8.84.1 and 8.85 are "sufficient to address a defendant's concerns about the proper use of victim impact evidence, and [are] consistent with his or her federal and state constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and a reliable penalty determination."

Rejecting similar claim

Rejecting challenge to CALJIC No. 8.83

Holding defendant forfeited Secondary Evidence Rule challenge by not raising it in the trial court