§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. DELGADO (ANTHONY GILBERT)

Appellant’s Reply Brief

94 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Olano

    507 U.S. 725 (1993)   Cited 11,255 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plain error review requires a reviewing court to refrain from correcting an error unless it is plain and affects "substantial rights," such that the error "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings"

  2. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,490 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  3. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 5,293 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

  4. United States v. Cronic

    466 U.S. 648 (1984)   Cited 7,368 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"

  5. Cuyler v. Sullivan

    446 U.S. 335 (1980)   Cited 5,707 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prejudice is presumed when a defendant establishes his attorney operated under an actual conflict of interest arising from concurrent representation of multiple clients which adversely affected the attorney's performance

  6. 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"

  7. Furman v. Georgia

    408 U.S. 238 (1972)   Cited 3,612 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that death penalty cannot be imposed using sentencing procedures that create a risk of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement

  8. Kentucky v. Stincer

    482 U.S. 730 (1987)   Cited 1,587 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that exclusion of a defendant from an ex parte in-chambers hearing at which the competency of two child witnesses was determined did not violate due process

  9. Weatherford v. Bursey

    429 U.S. 545 (1977)   Cited 2,336 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant in a non-capital case has no right to discover lists of prospective government witnesses

  10. In re Sheena K

    40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 2,730 times
    Finding probationer's forfeiture properly disregarded where facially vague and overbroad probation condition could be corrected by inserting a knowledge requirement

  11. Section 952 - "Confidential communication between client and lawyer"

    Cal. Evid. Code § 952   Cited 376 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Defining "confidential communication between client and lawyer" as "information transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of that relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted"