350 Cited authorities

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,360 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,619 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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,609 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,556 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,946 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,230 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,998 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”
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963) Cited 43,272 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
Harris v. Reed
489 U.S. 255 (1989) Cited 6,560 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal court on habeas review may evaluate the merits of a claim where the last state court rendering a judgment on that claim did not "clearly and expressly" state that the judgment rested solely on independent state grounds
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,458 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,098 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Section 28
Cal. Const. art. I § 28 Cited 2,118 times
Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"

PEOPLE v. TULLY (RICHARD C.)

350 Cited authorities

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

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 “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”

Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

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 the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

Holding that a federal court on habeas review may evaluate the merits of a claim where the last state court rendering a judgment on that claim did not "clearly and expressly" state that the judgment rested solely on independent state grounds

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

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"