115 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,491 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,522 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts
557 U.S. 305 (2009) Cited 3,576 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,973 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,566 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Edwards v. Arizona
451 U.S. 477 (1981) Cited 6,450 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that continued questioning violates Fifth Amendment if suspect clearly asserts right to counsel
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
564 U.S. 647 (2011) Cited 1,563 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding a certification of the blood alcohol content of a sample to be testimonial
Moran v. Burbine
475 U.S. 412 (1986) Cited 4,109 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted
Wainwright v. Witt
469 U.S. 412 (1985) Cited 3,276 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"
Williams v. Illinois
567 U.S. 50 (2012) Cited 993 times
Holding that a DNA matching process is not testimonial
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,782 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

PEOPLE v. AMEZCUA

115 Cited authorities

Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements

Holding that officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation

Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that continued questioning violates Fifth Amendment if suspect clearly asserts right to counsel

Holding a certification of the blood alcohol content of a sample to be testimonial

Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to statements a defendant makes to police before he is indicted

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 DNA matching process is not testimonial

Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"