54 Cited authorities

Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963) Cited 43,378 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,549 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
Barker v. Wingo
407 U.S. 514 (1972) Cited 11,598 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right
Cone v. Bell
556 U.S. 449 (2009) Cited 1,801 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that " claim is procedurally barred when it has not been fairly presented to the state courts for their initial consideration"
Doggett v. United States
505 U.S. 647 (1992) Cited 3,670 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a defendant could not be faulted for post-indictment delay because there was no evidence he was aware of the indictment or the police had been looking for him
Wainwright v. Witt
469 U.S. 412 (1985) Cited 3,273 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that juror bias determination is a question of fact, even though "[t]he trial judge is of course applying some kind of legal standard to what he sees and hears"
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
480 U.S. 39 (1987) Cited 2,674 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"
McKaskle v. Wiggins
465 U.S. 168 (1984) Cited 2,457 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that pro se defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel
Adams v. Texas
448 U.S. 38 (1980) Cited 1,264 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain veniremen had been improperly excluded because they acknowledged that their views of the death penalty might "affect" their deliberations, but only to the extent that they would view their task with greater gravity
People v. Williams
16 Cal.4th 153 (Cal. 1997) Cited 2,322 times
Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gang evidence, including testimony that the defendant led a meeting between two gangs where they planned to kill rival gang members
Section 1101 - Evidence of character to prove conduct
Cal. Evid. Code § 1101 Cited 6,045 times 2 Legal Analyses
Regarding admissibility of character evidence
Section 110 - "Burden of producing evidence"
Cal. Evid. Code § 110 Cited 112 times
Defining "Burden of producing evidence"

PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS, JR. (ROBERT LEE)

54 Cited authorities

Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

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 defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right

Holding that " claim is procedurally barred when it has not been fairly presented to the state courts for their initial consideration"

Holding a defendant could not be faulted for post-indictment delay because there was no evidence he was aware of the indictment or the police had been looking for him

Holding that juror bias determination is a question of fact, even though "[t]he trial judge is of course applying some kind of legal standard to what he sees and hears"

Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"

Holding that pro se defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel

Holding that certain veniremen had been improperly excluded because they acknowledged that their views of the death penalty might "affect" their deliberations, but only to the extent that they would view their task with greater gravity

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gang evidence, including testimony that the defendant led a meeting between two gangs where they planned to kill rival gang members

Regarding admissibility of character evidence

Defining "Burden of producing evidence"