38 Cited authorities

Lafler v. Cooper
566 U.S. 156 (2012) Cited 5,142 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, was satisfied where, among other things, a defendant had rejected a favorable plea offer based on the unreasonable advice of counsel
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970) Cited 11,723 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Lopez v. Smith
574 U.S. 1 (2014) Cited 739 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court's determination on whether a set of facts "measure[d] up to the [applicable legal] standard .... ranked as a legal determination governed by § 2254(d), not one of fact governed by § 2254(d)"
Schad v. Arizona
501 U.S. 624 (1991) Cited 1,378 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding constitutional Arizona's scheme of providing general verdicts for first-degree murder based on either premeditation or felony murder, without requiring jury unanimity
United States v. Hasting
461 U.S. 499 (1983) Cited 1,626 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Chapman mandates harmless error analysis of Griffin error
Arizona v. Washington
434 U.S. 497 (1978) Cited 1,841 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
Ohio v. Johnson
467 U.S. 493 (1984) Cited 1,205 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of more serious crimes when defendant pleaded to less serious crimes
People v. Holt
15 Cal.4th 619 (Cal. 1997) Cited 1,886 times
Holding that the failure to record statements did not violate the due process clause of either the state or federal constitution
Richardson v. United States
468 U.S. 317 (1984) Cited 709 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"
Schneble v. Florida
405 U.S. 427 (1972) Cited 1,055 times
Holding error harmless because "the minds of an average jury would not have found the State's case significantly less persuasive" in the absence of the erroneously admitted evidence
Section 14
Cal. Const. art. I § 14 Cited 387 times
Establishing the right to felony arraignment "without unnecessary delay"

PEOPLE v. GOOLSBY

38 Cited authorities

Holding that the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, was satisfied where, among other things, a defendant had rejected a favorable plea offer based on the unreasonable advice of counsel

Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Holding that a court's determination on whether a set of facts "measure[d] up to the [applicable legal] standard .... ranked as a legal determination governed by § 2254(d), not one of fact governed by § 2254(d)"

Holding constitutional Arizona's scheme of providing general verdicts for first-degree murder based on either premeditation or felony murder, without requiring jury unanimity

Holding that Chapman mandates harmless error analysis of Griffin error

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

Holding double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of more serious crimes when defendant pleaded to less serious crimes

Holding that the failure to record statements did not violate the due process clause of either the state or federal constitution

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"

Holding error harmless because "the minds of an average jury would not have found the State's case significantly less persuasive" in the absence of the erroneously admitted evidence

Establishing the right to felony arraignment "without unnecessary delay"