Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (2003) Cited 48,538 times 14 Legal AnalysesHolding that the government's exclusion of 10 out of 14, or 91%, of Black prospective jurors—along with the state's unreliable justifications—showed purposeful discrimination
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,313 times 64 Legal AnalysesHolding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,246 times 61 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,494 times 28 Legal AnalysesHolding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Miller-El v. Dretke
545 U.S. 231 (2005) Cited 2,700 times 15 Legal AnalysesHolding that a prosecutor “would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions” if he truly considered a race-neutral characteristic grounds for a peremptory strike
Zafiro v. United States
506 U.S. 534 (1993) Cited 3,809 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a district court's jury instructions may cure any risk of prejudice from antagonistic defenses
Hernandez v. New York
500 U.S. 352 (1991) Cited 3,863 times 17 Legal AnalysesHolding that evaluation of a prosecutor's credibility "lies `peculiarly within a trial judge's province'"
Purkett v. Elem
514 U.S. 765 (1995) Cited 3,011 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding a Court of Appeals erred by combining Batson’s second and third steps
Bruton v. United States
391 U.S. 123 (1968) Cited 8,928 times 26 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant
Snyder v. Louisiana
552 U.S. 472 (2008) Cited 1,367 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that District Court determinations as to discriminatory intent are findings of fact reviewed only for clear error
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,117 times 5 Legal AnalysesGuaranteeing due process and equal protection
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 2,089 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 8.50 - Applications
Cal. R. 8.50 Cited 11 times(a)Service and filing Except as these rules provide otherwise, parties must serve and file all applications in the reviewing court, including applications to extend the time to file records, briefs, or other documents, and applications to shorten time. For good cause, the Chief Justice or presiding justice may excuse advance service. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2023; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b)Contents The application must state facts showing good cause or making