24 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 136,002 times   173 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prejudice for IAC claims requires showing "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different"
  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 22,075 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. United States v. Gaudin

    515 U.S. 506 (1995)   Cited 1,490 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that materiality element of fraud, long decided as question of law by courts, was question of fact that had to be submitted to jury
  4. Arizona v. Washington

    434 U.S. 497 (1978)   Cited 1,686 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge's failure to make an explicit finding of manifest necessity does not render the declaration of a mistrial constitutionally defective when the basis for that determination is adequately disclosed by the record
  5. Illinois v. Somerville

    410 U.S. 458 (1973)   Cited 1,082 times
    Holding that since "the mistrial met the `manifest necessity" requirement of our cases, . . . the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . . did not bar retrial under a valid indictment."
  6. Richardson v. United States

    468 U.S. 317 (1984)   Cited 649 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy" and that "[r]egardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at petitioner's first trial, he has no valid double jeopardy claim to prevent his retrial"
  7. People v. Avila

    38 Cal.4th 491 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 979 times
    Ruling reviewed based on information before court at the time of the hearing
  8. Wade v. Hunter

    336 U.S. 684 (1949)   Cited 1,112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal, he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment
  9. People v. Marshall

    13 Cal.4th 799 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 507 times
    Finding "no constitutional error or abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to permit defendant" to present additional testimony after evidence was concluded and argument had begun
  10. People v. Anderson

    47 Cal.4th 92 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 230 times
    Explaining that a sentencing enhancement statute differs from a statute defining "greater and lesser degrees of the same offense" in that the enhancement addresses specified circumstances of the crime but "does not set forth ... a greater degree of the offense charged "
  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 238 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