66 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,794 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements
Bell v. Cone
535 U.S. 685 (2002) Cited 10,089 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that state court adjudication that “correctly identified the principles announced [by the Supreme Court] as those governing the analysis ... was [not] contrary to ... clearly established law”
Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,851 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 5,410 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of an involuntary statement is subject to harmless-error review
U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez
548 U.S. 140 (2006) Cited 2,165 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that the erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice is structural because "[i]t is impossible to know what different choices the rejected counsel would have made, and then to quantify the impact of those different choices on the outcome of the proceedings," and thus, "[h]armless-error analysis in such a context would be a speculative inquiry into what might have occurred in an alternate universe"
Gregg v. Georgia
428 U.S. 153 (1976) Cited 6,776 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"
Gideon v. Wainwright
372 U.S. 335 (1963) Cited 8,484 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel in all state felony prosecutions
Drope v. Missouri
420 U.S. 162 (1975) Cited 2,974 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's "demeanor at trial" may establish a need for further inquiry into the defendant's competency
Kentucky v. Stincer
482 U.S. 730 (1987) Cited 1,613 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that exclusion of a defendant from an ex parte in-chambers hearing at which the competency of two child witnesses was determined did not violate due process
Medina v. California
505 U.S. 437 (1992) Cited 1,327 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Due Process Clause has limited operation beyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights

PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (ANGELINA)

66 Cited authorities

Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements

Holding that state court adjudication that “correctly identified the principles announced [by the Supreme Court] as those governing the analysis ... was [not] contrary to ... clearly established law”

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 admission of an involuntary statement is subject to harmless-error review

Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"

Holding that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel in all state felony prosecutions

Holding that a defendant's "demeanor at trial" may establish a need for further inquiry into the defendant's competency

Holding that exclusion of a defendant from an ex parte in-chambers hearing at which the competency of two child witnesses was determined did not violate due process

Holding that the Due Process Clause has limited operation beyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights