103 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,093 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"
  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,583 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”
  3. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,343 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"
  4. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,383 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"
  5. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,874 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
  6. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,289 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"
  7. Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts

    557 U.S. 305 (2009)   Cited 3,534 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial
  8. Delaware v. Van Arsdall

    475 U.S. 673 (1986)   Cited 7,262 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
  9. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,616 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
  10. Woodford v. Garceau

    538 U.S. 202 (2003)   Cited 1,573 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that AEDPA's application depends on whether the petitioner filed an application for habeas relief seeking an adjudication on the merits after AEDPA's effective date
  11. Rule 804 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness

    Fed. R. Evid. 804   Cited 3,928 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing an exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule when the party against whom the statement is offered has engaged in wrongdoing which procures the unavailability of the declarant
  12. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,304 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)