38 Cited authorities

United States v. Olano
507 U.S. 725 (1993) Cited 11,255 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that plain error review requires a reviewing court to refrain from correcting an error unless it is plain and affects "substantial rights," such that the error "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings"
Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,558 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
Crane v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 683 (1986) Cited 3,284 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"
Chambers v. Mississippi
410 U.S. 284 (1973) Cited 5,979 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable
Godinez v. Moran
509 U.S. 389 (1993) Cited 2,287 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the trial competency standard applies to guilty pleas
McKaskle v. Wiggins
465 U.S. 168 (1984) Cited 2,459 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
Illinois v. Allen
397 U.S. 337 (1970) Cited 2,887 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant can forfeit his Sixth Amendment right to be present in trial if he insists on being “so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom”
Johnson v. Zerbst
304 U.S. 458 (1938) Cited 8,802 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent
Herring v. New York
422 U.S. 853 (1975) Cited 1,161 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a New York statute allowing judges in a criminal bench trial to deny counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel
People v. Jenkins
22 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2000) Cited 1,619 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "it was not error to refuse to permit counsel to ask questions based upon an account of the facts of this case, or to ask a juror to consider particular facts that would cause him or her to impose the death penalty," because "`The Witherspoon-Witt voir dire seeks to determine only the views of the prospective jurors about capital punishment in the abstract. . . . The inquiry is directed to whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an "open mind" on the penalty determination.'"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,314 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

PEOPLE v. ESPINOZA

38 Cited authorities

Holding that plain error review requires a reviewing court to refrain from correcting an error unless it is plain and affects "substantial rights," such that the error "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings"

Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"

Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable

Holding that the trial competency standard applies to guilty pleas

Holding that pro se defendant's right to self-representation was not violated by the presence of a court-appointed standby counsel

Holding that a defendant can forfeit his Sixth Amendment right to be present in trial if he insists on being “so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom”

Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent

Holding that a New York statute allowing judges in a criminal bench trial to deny counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”