130 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,284 times 225 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,490 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,558 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,293 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
Sullivan v. Louisiana
508 U.S. 275 (1993) Cited 3,282 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
416 U.S. 637 (1974) Cited 6,218 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because a prosecutor's statement during closing argument was ambiguous, it was not so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of due process
Mathews v. United States
485 U.S. 58 (1988) Cited 1,241 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant is only entitled to an entrapment instruction when "there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment"
People v. Breverman
19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) Cited 3,870 times
Holding that the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone subject only to state standards of reversibility
P1eople. v. Hill
17 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 1998) Cited 3,802 times
Holding the prosecutor committed misconduct insofar as her statement that '"[t]here has to be some evidence on which to base a doubt'" "could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting to the jury she did not have the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"
Spencer v. Texas
385 U.S. 554 (1967) Cited 1,531 times
Holding that evidence of a defendant's prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt

PEOPLE v. DAVEGGIO & MICHAUD

130 Cited authorities

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

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

Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

Holding that, because a prosecutor's statement during closing argument was ambiguous, it was not so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of due process

Holding that a defendant is only entitled to an entrapment instruction when "there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment"

Holding that the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone subject only to state standards of reversibility

Holding the prosecutor committed misconduct insofar as her statement that '"[t]here has to be some evidence on which to base a doubt'" "could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting to the jury she did not have the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that evidence of a defendant's prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt