66 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,417 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"
Bell v. Cone
535 U.S. 685 (2002) Cited 9,828 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 12,558 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
U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez
548 U.S. 140 (2006) Cited 2,101 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice does not require showing prejudice
Gregg v. Georgia
428 U.S. 153 (1976) Cited 6,625 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 8,393 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel in all state felony prosecutions
Drope v. Missouri
420 U.S. 162 (1975) Cited 2,906 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 1,587 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 1,289 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 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 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 involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Holding that a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice does not require showing prejudice

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