20 Cited authorities

  1. Wainwright v. Witt

    469 U.S. 412 (1985)   Cited 3,175 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that juror bias determination is a question of fact, even though "[t]he trial judge is of course applying some kind of legal standard to what he sees and hears"
  2. Duncan v. Louisiana

    391 U.S. 145 (1968)   Cited 2,918 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that trial by jury is a fundamental right
  3. People v. Clark

    52 Cal.4th 856 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,161 times
    Holding that because the jury was instructed to ignore the improper question, there was little risk the jury made improper inferences from defendant's silence
  4. People v. Rogers

    39 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,392 times
    Holding that the substantially similar CALJIC No. 8.73 was a pinpoint instruction that need not be given sua sponte
  5. People v. Yeoman

    31 Cal.4th 93 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,081 times
    Holding that the trial court's error in depriving defendant of peremptory challenges was harmless because no incompetent juror sat on the panel
  6. People v. Weaver

    26 Cal.4th 876 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,098 times
    Holding that under California law, a reviewing court must "defer to the trial court's resolution of disputed facts, including the credibility of witnesses, if that resolution is supported by substantial evidence"
  7. People v. Moye

    47 Cal.4th 537 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 670 times
    Finding failure to instruct on heat of passion voluntary manslaughter harmless because among other things, "[o]nce the jury rejected defendant's claims of reasonable and imperfect self-defense, there was little if any independent evidence remaining to support his further claim that he killed in the heat of passion . . . or acted rashly or impulsively while under its influence for reasons unrelated to his perceived need for self-defense."
  8. People v. Blair

    36 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 502 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant's having been found insane and confined to a mental institution fifteen years earlier “was insufficient to compel a doubt whether defendant had the mental capacity to understand the proceedings against him in the current prosecution,” and that judge misspoke when he referred to defendant as a “psychopath,” a condition involving lack of touch with reality and thus implying an inability to assist with his defense
  9. People v. Mills

    48 Cal.4th 158 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 406 times
    Upholding as race-neutral the prosecutor’s stated concern about a prospective juror’s belief that the prosecution in the O.J. Simpson murder trial had not proved Simpson’s guilt
  10. People v. Parson

    44 Cal.4th 332 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 426 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[a]n intent to commit theft by a false pretense or a false promise without the intent to perform will support a burglary conviction” and finding substantial evidence to support burglary conviction when defendant entered victim's home intending to “ ‘con’ ” her out of money
  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 305 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