325 Cited authorities

Williams v. Taylor
529 U.S. 362 (2000) Cited 37,741 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,400 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"
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,591 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,238 times 224 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,953 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
526 U.S. 137 (1999) Cited 12,586 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,291 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,940 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,463 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,275 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,312 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 14
Cal. Const. art. I § 14 Cited 385 times
Establishing the right to felony arraignment "without unnecessary delay"

PEOPLE v. DAVEGGIO & MICHAUD

325 Cited authorities

Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

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 courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

Establishing the right to felony arraignment "without unnecessary delay"