40 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,415 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"
Yarborough v. Alvarado
541 U.S. 652 (2004) Cited 7,995 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that habeas relief from a state court judgment is appropriate only when "the necessity to apply [an] earlier rule [set forth by the Supreme Court is] beyond doubt"
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,297 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
Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (1968) Cited 38,169 times 73 Legal Analyses
Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop
Florida v. Bostick
501 U.S. 429 (1991) Cited 4,595 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that police officers' search of a bus passenger's luggage can be based on consent
Florida v. Royer
460 U.S. 491 (1983) Cited 6,705 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government bears the burden of demonstrating reasonable suspicion
Brendlin v. California
551 U.S. 249 (2007) Cited 2,087 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that when police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the vehicle, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and may challenge the stop's constitutionality
Schriro v. Summerlin
542 U.S. 348 (2004) Cited 2,206 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"
Thompson v. Keohane
516 U.S. 99 (1995) Cited 2,429 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that factual determinations consist of "basic, primary, or historical facts" (quoting Townsend v. Sain , 372 U.S. 293, 309 n.6, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) )
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
416 U.S. 637 (1974) Cited 6,218 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because a prosecutor's statement during closing argument was ambiguous, it was not so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of due process

PEOPLE v. KOPATZ (KIM RAYMOND)

40 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 that habeas relief from a state court judgment is appropriate only when "the necessity to apply [an] earlier rule [set forth by the Supreme Court is] beyond doubt"

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

Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop

Holding that police officers' search of a bus passenger's luggage can be based on consent

Holding that the government bears the burden of demonstrating reasonable suspicion

Holding that when police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the vehicle, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and may challenge the stop's constitutionality

Holding "[n]ew substantive rules generally apply retroactively"

Holding that factual determinations consist of "basic, primary, or historical facts" (quoting Townsend v. Sain , 372 U.S. 293, 309 n.6, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) )

Holding that, because a prosecutor's statement during closing argument was ambiguous, it was not so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of due process