92 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,496 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,893 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 20,096 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,833 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
Kyles v. Whitley
514 U.S. 419 (1995) Cited 7,299 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts
557 U.S. 305 (2009) Cited 3,577 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963) Cited 43,850 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
United States v. Bagley
473 U.S. 667 (1985) Cited 9,471 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,571 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Barker v. Wingo
407 U.S. 514 (1972) Cited 11,662 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right
Section 352 - Balancing of probative value with prejudice
Cal. Evid. Code § 352 Cited 12,854 times 5 Legal Analyses
Giving a trial court discretion to exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury"

PEOPLE v. CORDOVA (JOSEPH SEFERINO)

92 Cited authorities

Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements

Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

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

Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

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

Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant

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

Holding that defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right

Giving a trial court discretion to exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury"