32 Cited authorities

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
Irvin v. Dowd
366 U.S. 717 (1961) Cited 3,665 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that eight jurors’ predisposed opinions as to guilt based on adverse pre-trial publicity violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood
464 U.S. 548 (1984) Cited 1,400 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to obtain a new trial because of a juror's alleged untruthfulness during voir dire, "a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."
Rushen v. Spain
464 U.S. 114 (1983) Cited 1,005 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant's absence during judge's communication with juror was harmless
In re Clark
5 Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 1993) Cited 3,135 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "absent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single, timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, successive and/or untimely petitions will be summarily denied"
People v. Duvall
9 Cal.4th 464 (Cal. 1995) Cited 2,646 times
Holding that a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably available evidence
People v. Dykes
46 Cal.4th 731 (Cal. 2009) Cited 849 times
Finding permissible testimony "concerning the victim's character"
People v. Collins
49 Cal.4th 175 (Cal. 2010) Cited 449 times
Holding juror's use of home computer to make a diagram of relative positions of defendant and victim at time of shooting and demonstration during deliberations how victim may have sustained wound with downward trajectory not misconduct
In re Reno
55 Cal.4th 428 (Cal. 2012) Cited 381 times
Approving of abbreviated state court habeas exhaustion petition procedure and finding it did not conflict with United States Supreme Court limitation of federal habeas review to the record before the state court which adjudicated the claim on the merits in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170
People v. Nesler
16 Cal.4th 561 (Cal. 1997) Cited 587 times
In Nesler, the California Supreme Court applied Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent to determine whether a defendant was prejudiced by the jury's receipt of extraneous information.
Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
U.S. Const. amend. VI Cited 28,093 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 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,774 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

BELL (STEVEN M.) ON H.C.

32 Cited authorities

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

Holding that eight jurors’ predisposed opinions as to guilt based on adverse pre-trial publicity violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury

Holding that defendant's absence during judge's communication with juror was harmless

Holding that "absent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single, timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, successive and/or untimely petitions will be summarily denied"

Holding that a petition for writ of habeas corpus must include copies of reasonably available evidence

Finding permissible testimony "concerning the victim's character"

Holding juror's use of home computer to make a diagram of relative positions of defendant and victim at time of shooting and demonstration during deliberations how victim may have sustained wound with downward trajectory not misconduct

Approving of abbreviated state court habeas exhaustion petition procedure and finding it did not conflict with United States Supreme Court limitation of federal habeas review to the record before the state court which adjudicated the claim on the merits in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170

In Nesler, the California Supreme Court applied Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent to determine whether a defendant was prejudiced by the jury's receipt of extraneous information.

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

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