111 Cited authorities

Harrington v. Richter
562 U.S. 86 (2011) Cited 26,352 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,894 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,494 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 12,560 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
Stansbury v. California
511 U.S. 318 (1994) Cited 2,939 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a clear statement by a police officer that the person being questioned is a suspect does not alone determine custody, but is only "one among many factors" that bear on an assessment of whether a reasonable person would feel free to depart
Godinez v. Moran
509 U.S. 389 (1993) Cited 2,287 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the trial competency standard applies to guilty pleas
Wainwright v. Witt
469 U.S. 412 (1985) Cited 3,274 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"
Rock v. Arkansas
483 U.S. 44 (1987) Cited 2,831 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that a rule that categorically barred all hypnotically refreshed testimony "is an arbitrary restriction ... in the absence of clear evidence by the State repudiating the validity of all posthypnosis recollections"
Indiana v. Edwards
554 U.S. 164 (2008) Cited 1,139 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by appointing counsel against defendant's objection where defendant was competent to stand trial but not competent to conduct trial proceedings by himself
People v. Doolin
45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009) Cited 3,874 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

PEOPLE v. MICKEL (ANDREW)

111 Cited authorities

Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

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 a clear statement by a police officer that the person being questioned is a suspect does not alone determine custody, but is only "one among many factors" that bear on an assessment of whether a reasonable person would feel free to depart

Holding that the trial competency standard applies to guilty pleas

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 a rule that categorically barred all hypnotically refreshed testimony "is an arbitrary restriction ... in the absence of clear evidence by the State repudiating the validity of all posthypnosis recollections"

Holding that the court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by appointing counsel against defendant's objection where defendant was competent to stand trial but not competent to conduct trial proceedings by himself

Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied