187 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,702 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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,879 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"
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,522 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,299 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 5,011 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”
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,566 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Zafiro v. United States
506 U.S. 534 (1993) Cited 3,825 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court's jury instructions may cure any risk of prejudice from antagonistic defenses
Bruton v. United States
391 U.S. 123 (1968) Cited 8,946 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant
Payne v. Tennessee
501 U.S. 808 (1991) Cited 2,620 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment
Pulley v. Harris
465 U.S. 37 (1984) Cited 3,449 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,320 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,130 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

PEOPLE v. ROUNTREE (CHARLES F.)

187 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 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 officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation

Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

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

Holding that a district court's jury instructions may cure any risk of prejudice from antagonistic defenses

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant

Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"

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

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection