211 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,894 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,617 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”
Wiggins v. Smith
539 U.S. 510 (2003) Cited 9,486 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence
Bell v. Cone
535 U.S. 685 (2002) Cited 9,830 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that state court adjudication that “correctly identified the principles announced [by the Supreme Court] as those governing the analysis ... was [not] contrary to ... clearly established law”
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”
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,285 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
United States v. Cronic
466 U.S. 648 (1984) Cited 7,370 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"
Davis v. Alaska
415 U.S. 308 (1974) Cited 5,692 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike
Wainwright v. Witt
469 U.S. 412 (1985) Cited 3,274 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"
Walton v. Arizona
497 U.S. 639 (1990) Cited 1,678 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding state appellate court may properly determine whether evidence supports a properly limited aggravator
Section 190.3 - Death penalty for defendant found guilty of first degree murder with special circumstance
Cal. Pen. Code § 190.3 Cited 821 times 6 Legal Analyses
Providing that, "[i]n determining the penalty, the trier of fact shall take into account" any relevant listed factors

PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (GEORGE BRETT)

211 Cited authorities

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

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 state court adjudication that “correctly identified the principles announced [by the Supreme Court] as those governing the analysis ... was [not] contrary to ... clearly established law”

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

Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"

Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

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"

Holding state appellate court may properly determine whether evidence supports a properly limited aggravator

Providing that, "[i]n determining the penalty, the trier of fact shall take into account" any relevant listed factors