115 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,419 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"
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,313 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts
557 U.S. 305 (2009) Cited 3,556 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 4,952 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 23,494 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 6,430 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 1,549 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 4,092 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 3,274 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"
Williams v. Illinois
567 U.S. 50 (2012) Cited 980 times
Holding that a DNA matching process is not testimonial
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,777 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 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 statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

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"