134 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 22,054 times   200 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Fed. R. Evid. 702 authorizes a "preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony [of an expert] is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue"
  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

    526 U.S. 137 (1999)   Cited 10,506 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
  3. Early v. Packer

    537 U.S. 3 (2002)   Cited 5,100 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petitioner's authorities, which did not "purport to interpret any provision of the Constitution," could not provide clearly established federal law within the meaning of § 2254
  4. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 6,490 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense
  5. General Electric Co. v. Joiner

    522 U.S. 136 (1997)   Cited 3,995 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous
  6. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 21,908 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  7. Holmes v. South Carolina

    547 U.S. 319 (2006)   Cited 1,607 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional a state evidentiary rule automatically excluding alternative perpetrator evidence when the prosecution case was strong
  8. Gregg v. Georgia

    428 U.S. 153 (1976)   Cited 6,060 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to afford an individual defendant mercy does not violate the Constitution so long as "the decision to impose it [is] guided by standards so that the sentencing authority [will] focus on the particularized circumstances of the crime and the defendant."
  9. Manson v. Brathwaite

    432 U.S. 98 (1977)   Cited 5,317 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, if police procedures are unduly suggestive, identification will be excluded if its reliability does not outweigh corrupting influence of suggestive procedure
  10. California v. Trombetta

    467 U.S. 479 (1984)   Cited 3,756 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Constitution does not require the state to preserve a breath sample used in a breath-analysis test in a DUI prosecution
  11. Rule 606 - Juror's Competency as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 606   Cited 1,553 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Stating that jurors are generally incompetent to testify concerning jury deliberations
  12. Rule 4.111 - Pretrial motions in criminal cases

    Cal. R. 4.111   Cited 7 times

    (a) Time for filing papers and proof of service Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all pretrial motions, accompanied by a memorandum must, be served and filed at least 10 court days, all papers opposing the motion at least 5 court days, and all reply papers at least 2 court days before the time appointed for hearing. Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than 5 court days before the time appointed for hearing. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2010;