§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. ANZALONE

Respondent's Petition for Review

51 Cited authorities

  1. Neder v. United States

    527 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 4,937 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

  2. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,461 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  3. Delaware v. Van Arsdall

    475 U.S. 673 (1986)   Cited 7,273 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

  4. 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

  5. Sullivan v. Louisiana

    508 U.S. 275 (1993)   Cited 3,276 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

  6. Gideon v. Wainwright

    372 U.S. 335 (1963)   Cited 8,388 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel in all state felony prosecutions

  7. McKaskle v. Wiggins

    465 U.S. 168 (1984)   Cited 2,452 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pro se defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel

  8. Waller v. Georgia

    467 U.S. 39 (1984)   Cited 2,088 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's public trial right was violated even though the district court released a transcript of the closed proceedings to the public

  9. Vasquez v. Hillery

    474 U.S. 254 (1986)   Cited 1,903 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a judge's systemic exclusion of racial minorities from the grand jury compelled the dismissal of the indictment

  10. Washington v. Recuenco

    548 U.S. 212 (2006)   Cited 867 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding Blakely violations are subject to harmless error review

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,311 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  12. 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"

  13. 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