23 Cited authorities

  1. Zafiro v. United States

    506 U.S. 534 (1993)   Cited 3,108 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in the context of joint trials, “a fair trial does not include the right to exclude relevant and competent evidence”
  2. Bruton v. United States

    391 U.S. 123 (1968)   Cited 8,031 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's out-of-court statement inculpating a defendant by name violated a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him or her
  3. Zant v. Stephens

    462 U.S. 862 (1983)   Cited 1,643 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an aggravating circumstance must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty"
  4. Woodson v. North Carolina

    428 U.S. 280 (1976)   Cited 1,845 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the State's mandatory death penalty statute violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
  5. Mills v. Maryland

    486 U.S. 367 (1988)   Cited 989 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “the risk that the death penalty will be imposed in spite of factors which may call for a less severe penalty is unacceptable and incompatible with the commands of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments”
  6. People v. Coffman and Marlow

    34 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,030 times
    Upholding admissibility of expert testimony offered to establish defendant's state of mind that did not directly relate to pending criminal offenses but concerned abused defendant's relationship with victim
  7. People v. Mendoza

    24 Cal.4th 130 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 730 times
    In Mendoza, the California Supreme Court applied federal law in determining whether the flight instruction contained a permissive inference of consciousness of guilt.
  8. People v. Arias

    13 Cal.4th 92 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 705 times
    In People v. Arias, 913 P.2d 980, 1042 (Cal. 1996), for instance, defendant argued that California's death penalty scheme "violate[d] the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment because it allows prosecutors 'standardless' discretion to decide when to seek the death penalty and thus leads to arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty.
  9. People v. Cummings

    4 Cal.4th 1233 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 590 times
    Approving use of mannequins as illustrative evidence "to assist the jury in understanding the testimony of witnesses or to clarify the circumstances of a crime"
  10. People v. Hardy

    2 Cal.4th 86 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 542 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding "no reasonable probability . . . [of] actual prejudice" where the trial court permitted a juror, during a view of a crime scene, to examine a door and to have it opened and closed