10 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,807 times   176 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"
  2. Richardson v. Marsh

    481 U.S. 200 (1987)   Cited 3,779 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding codefendant’s confession that "was not incriminating on its face," but "became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial," to "fall outside" narrow Bruton exception
  3. Smith v. Phillips

    455 U.S. 209 (1982)   Cited 4,854 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
  4. Rushen v. Spain

    464 U.S. 114 (1983)   Cited 1,006 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant's absence during judge's communication with juror was harmless
  5. Romano v. Oklahoma

    512 U.S. 1 (1994)   Cited 569 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a limiting instruction by the trial court precluded a finding that improperly admitted evidence “so infected the sentencing proceeding with unfairness as to render the jury's imposition of the death penalty a denial of due process”
  6. People v. Welch

    20 Cal.4th 701 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,277 times
    Holding the trial court "erred in its determination that a higher standard of competence to waive counsel applied"
  7. In re Carpenter

    9 Cal.4th 634 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 366 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that California Constitution "grants original subject matter jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings to the superior court, the Court of Appeal, and [the Supreme Court]"
  8. People v. Hawthorne

    4 Cal.4th 43 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 289 times
    Finding that trial court did not have to define “death” as such was not a legal term of art
  9. In re Hitchings

    6 Cal.4th 97 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 279 times
    Noting the right to an impartial jury is embedded in the Constitution and in case law
  10. People v. Napolitano

    175 Cal.App.2d 477 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 2 times

    Docket No. 6419. November 20, 1959. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph L. Call, Judge. Affirmed. Ellery E. Cuff, Public Defender (Los Angeles), and Richard W. Erskine, Deputy Public Defender, for Appellant. Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest E. Sanchez, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. FOX, P.J. The district attorney of Los Angeles County filed an information in two counts charging, in Count I, that