105 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,859 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,417 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"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,490 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Ohio v. Roberts
448 U.S. 56 (1980) Cited 4,632 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that the question of good-faith effort is a question of reasonableness, and a prosecutor is not required to do a futile act
Idaho v. Wright
497 U.S. 805 (1990) Cited 1,693 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that to have "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness," hearsay evidence "must possess indicia of reliability by virtue of its inherent trustworthiness, not by reference to other evidence at trial"
Delaware v. Fensterer
474 U.S. 15 (1985) Cited 2,021 times
Holding that the confrontation clause guarantees only "an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish."
California v. Green
399 U.S. 149 (1970) Cited 2,915 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the Confrontation Clause does not require excluding from evidence the prior statements of a witness who concedes making those statements"
In re Sheena K
40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) Cited 2,730 times
Finding probationer's forfeiture properly disregarded where facially vague and overbroad probation condition could be corrected by inserting a knowledge requirement
P1eople. v. Hill
17 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 1998) Cited 3,802 times
Holding the prosecutor committed misconduct insofar as her statement that '"[t]here has to be some evidence on which to base a doubt'" "could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting to the jury she did not have the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"
People v. Scott
9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994) Cited 3,905 times
Holding that "complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal"
Rule 8.1110 - Partial publication
Cal. R. 8.1110 Cited 2,327 times
(a)Order for partial publication A majority of the rendering court may certify for publication any part of an opinion meeting a standard for publication under rule 8.1105. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Opinion contents The published part of the opinion must specify the part or parts not certified for publication. All material, factual and legal, including the disposition, that aids in the application or interpretation of the published part must be published. (c) Construction For
Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions
Cal. R. 8.1105 Cited 2,088 times
(a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion
Rule 8.500 - Petition for review
Cal. R. 8.500 Cited 337 times
(a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer
Rule 8.360 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae
Cal. R. 8.360 Cited 102 times
(a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in criminal appeals must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed 25,500 words, including footnotes. Such a brief must include a certificate by appellate counsel or an unrepresented defendant stating the number of words in the brief; the person certifying may rely on the word count of the computer program used to prepare
Rule 8.508 - Petition for review to exhaust state remedies
Cal. R. 8.508 Cited 7 times
(a) Purpose After decision by the Court of Appeal in a criminal case, a defendant may file an abbreviated petition for review in the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of exhausting state remedies before presenting a claim for federal habeas corpus relief. (b)Form and contents (1) The words "Petition for Review to Exhaust State Remedies" must appear prominently on the cover of the petition. (2) Except as provided in (3), the petition must comply with rule 8.504. (3) The petition need not comply with

PEOPLE v. CORNETT

105 Cited authorities

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

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

Holding that the question of good-faith effort is a question of reasonableness, and a prosecutor is not required to do a futile act

Holding that to have "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness," hearsay evidence "must possess indicia of reliability by virtue of its inherent trustworthiness, not by reference to other evidence at trial"

Holding that the confrontation clause guarantees only "an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish."

Holding that "the Confrontation Clause does not require excluding from evidence the prior statements of a witness who concedes making those statements"

Finding probationer's forfeiture properly disregarded where facially vague and overbroad probation condition could be corrected by inserting a knowledge requirement

Holding the prosecutor committed misconduct insofar as her statement that '"[t]here has to be some evidence on which to base a doubt'" "could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting to the jury she did not have the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that "complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal"