168 Cited authorities

  1. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 7,227 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense
  2. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 43,027 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
  3. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,424 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  4. Delaware v. Van Arsdall

    475 U.S. 673 (1986)   Cited 7,262 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
  5. Chambers v. Mississippi

    410 U.S. 284 (1973)   Cited 5,964 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable
  6. Lockett v. Ohio

    438 U.S. 586 (1978)   Cited 3,736 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Ohio death penalty statute, which required imposition of the death penalty once a defendant was found guilty of aggravated murder with at least one of seven specified aggravating factors, unless one of three specified mitigating factors was established by a preponderance of the evidence, violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the statute limited the range of mitigating factors that the sentencer could consider
  7. Caldwell v. Mississippi

    472 U.S. 320 (1985)   Cited 2,318 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if improper prosecutorial comment occurs, the sentencing decision "does not meet the standard of reliability that the Eighth Amendment requires"
  8. Delaware v. Fensterer

    474 U.S. 15 (1985)   Cited 2,012 times
    Holding that the confrontation clause guarantees only "an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish."
  9. Eddings v. Oklahoma

    455 U.S. 104 (1982)   Cited 2,309 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a sentencing court cannot "refuse to consider, as a matter of law , any relevant mitigating evidence"
  10. People v. Doolin

    45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 3,856 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied
  11. Section 1108 - Evidence of defendant's other sexual offenses

    Cal. Evid. Code § 1108   Cited 2,452 times
    Adopting a rule similar to that found in Rules 413 and 414 of the Federal Rules of Evidence
  12. Section 3593 - Special hearing to determine whether a sentence of death is justified

    18 U.S.C. § 3593   Cited 619 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Detailing unique procedures applicable to the "[s]pecial hearing to determine whether a sentence of death is justified" (boldface omitted)
  13. Section 11

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 11   Cited 304 times
    Authorizing the taking of such evidence