183 Cited authorities

Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,946 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,458 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,272 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,281 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
Darden v. Wainwright
477 U.S. 168 (1986) Cited 6,557 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"
Smith v. Phillips
455 U.S. 209 (1982) Cited 4,848 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a juror's pending job application with the prosecutor's office required a post-trial hearing on juror bias
Bruton v. United States
391 U.S. 123 (1968) Cited 8,922 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
416 U.S. 637 (1974) Cited 6,210 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because a prosecutor's statement during closing argument was ambiguous, it was not so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of due process
Crane v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 683 (1986) Cited 3,276 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"
Davis v. Alaska
415 U.S. 308 (1974) Cited 5,683 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike
Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
U.S. Const. amend. VI Cited 28,088 times 1 Legal Analyses
Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
Section 13
Cal. Const. art. VI § 13 Cited 4,508 times
Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,311 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 28
Cal. Const. art. I § 28 Cited 2,118 times
Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"

PEOPLE v. ANDERSON

183 Cited authorities

Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

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

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"

Holding that a juror's pending job application with the prosecutor's office required a post-trial hearing on juror bias

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant

Holding that, because a prosecutor's statement during closing argument was ambiguous, it was not so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of due process

Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"

Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"