38 Cited authorities

Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,281 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
Bracy v. Gramley
520 U.S. 899 (1997) Cited 3,027 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a constitutional floor, not a uniform standard" and noting the existence of many laws that legislate above that constitutional minimum
Smith v. Phillips
455 U.S. 209 (1982) Cited 4,848 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a juror's pending job application with the prosecutor's office required a post-trial hearing on juror bias
Irvin v. Dowd
366 U.S. 717 (1961) Cited 3,665 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that eight jurors’ predisposed opinions as to guilt based on adverse pre-trial publicity violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood
464 U.S. 548 (1984) Cited 1,400 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to obtain a new trial because of a juror's alleged untruthfulness during voir dire, "a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."
Turner v. Louisiana
379 U.S. 466 (1965) Cited 1,054 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the testifying officers’ continuous and intimate association with the jurors outside of the courtroom violated the defendant's constitutional rights
People v. Cooper
53 Cal.3d 771 (Cal. 1991) Cited 828 times
Adopting the Youngblood bad faith standard as a matter of State constitutional law
Tumey v. Ohio
273 U.S. 510 (1927) Cited 2,133 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Due Process Clause requires recusal when a judge has a "direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest" in a case
Offutt v. United States
348 U.S. 11 (1954) Cited 728 times
Holding that heavy sanctions, which were later reduced by a higher court, constituted “compelling proof” of bias
People v. Nesler
16 Cal.4th 561 (Cal. 1997) Cited 587 times
In Nesler, the California Supreme Court applied Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent to determine whether a defendant was prejudiced by the jury's receipt of extraneous information.
Section 225 - Challenge defined; challenge to panel; challenge to prospective juror
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 225 Cited 154 times
Requiring that any challenge to the composition of the jury panel be made prior to the swearing of the trial jury
Section 231 - Peremptory challenges in criminal cases
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 231 Cited 115 times
Allotting both noncapital defendants and the prosecution 10 peremptory challenges per trial

BOYETTE (MAURICE) ON H.C.

38 Cited authorities

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Holding that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a constitutional floor, not a uniform standard" and noting the existence of many laws that legislate above that constitutional minimum

Holding that a juror's pending job application with the prosecutor's office required a post-trial hearing on juror bias

Holding that eight jurors’ predisposed opinions as to guilt based on adverse pre-trial publicity violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury

Holding that the testifying officers’ continuous and intimate association with the jurors outside of the courtroom violated the defendant's constitutional rights

Adopting the Youngblood bad faith standard as a matter of State constitutional law

Holding that the Due Process Clause requires recusal when a judge has a "direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest" in a case

Holding that heavy sanctions, which were later reduced by a higher court, constituted “compelling proof” of bias

In Nesler, the California Supreme Court applied Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent to determine whether a defendant was prejudiced by the jury's receipt of extraneous information.

Requiring that any challenge to the composition of the jury panel be made prior to the swearing of the trial jury

Allotting both noncapital defendants and the prosecution 10 peremptory challenges per trial