10 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 141,395 times   173 Legal Analyses
    Holding that trial counsel renders ineffective assistance when his performance falls "below an objective standard of reasonableness" and when "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different"
  2. Smith v. Phillips

    455 U.S. 209 (1982)   Cited 4,258 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
  3. Richardson v. Marsh

    481 U.S. 200 (1987)   Cited 3,268 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
  4. Rushen v. Spain

    464 U.S. 114 (1983)   Cited 912 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 503 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 1,215 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 334 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 275 times
    In Hawthorne, supra, 4 Cal.4th 43, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 133, 841 P.2d 118, the defendant claimed that he was deprived of his due process right to the presumption of innocence by the court's failure to instruct with the complete text of CALJIC No. 1.00.
  9. In re Hitchings

    6 Cal.4th 97 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 260 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