167 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 159,487 times 179 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"
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,475 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"
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,851 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 20,077 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
United States v. Olano
507 U.S. 725 (1993) Cited 11,306 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"
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,826 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,967 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,556 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,299 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Darden v. Wainwright
477 U.S. 168 (1986) Cited 6,594 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"

PEOPLE v. PENUNURI

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 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 that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

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"

Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

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

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"