118 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,646 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”
Strickler v. Greene
527 U.S. 263 (1999) Cited 6,387 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that a newspaper article detailing that a witness had been interviewed by the police did not suffice to put a defendant's lawyer on notice that records and evidence concerning the witness existed and had been suppressed
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,999 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”
United States v. Bagley
473 U.S. 667 (1985) Cited 9,432 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,482 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,283 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Harmelin v. Michigan
501 U.S. 957 (1991) Cited 4,863 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that sentencing court not required to consider mitigating sentencing factors before imposing mandatory life sentence
Crane v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 683 (1986) Cited 3,282 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"
Davis v. Alaska
415 U.S. 308 (1974) Cited 5,691 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike
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
Section 848 - Continuing criminal enterprise
21 U.S.C. § 848 Cited 3,828 times 30 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the court's authority in certain situations to "impose a sentence, other than death, authorized by law"
Section 190 - Punishment
Cal. Pen. Code § 190 Cited 1,315 times
Concerning homicide

PEOPLE v. MASTERS (JARVIS)

118 Cited authorities

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”

Holding that a newspaper article detailing that a witness had been interviewed by the police did not suffice to put a defendant's lawyer on notice that records and evidence concerning the witness existed and had been suppressed

Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Holding that sentencing court not required to consider mitigating sentencing factors before imposing mandatory life sentence

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 this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

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

Recognizing the court's authority in certain situations to "impose a sentence, other than death, authorized by law"

Concerning homicide