178 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,625 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 16,610 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 77,575 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"
Early v. Packer
537 U.S. 3 (2002) Cited 5,533 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state court need not cite federal case law so long as it does not contradict that case law
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”
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,463 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Jones v. United States
526 U.S. 227 (1999) Cited 1,898 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that "under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt"
Godinez v. Moran
509 U.S. 389 (1993) Cited 2,283 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the trial competency standard applies to guilty pleas
Pulley v. Harris
465 U.S. 37 (1984) Cited 3,441 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"
Victor v. Nebraska
511 U.S. 1 (1994) Cited 1,746 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof," so long as the instructions taken as a whole correctly convey the concept of "reasonable doubt"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,311 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 13
Cal. Const. art. I § 13 Cited 1,167 times
Prohibiting "unreasonable seizures and searches"

PEOPLE v. NELSON (SERGIO DUJUAN)

178 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 “[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 state court need not cite federal case law so long as it does not contradict that case 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 error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that the trial competency standard applies to guilty pleas

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"

Holding that "the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof," so long as the instructions taken as a whole correctly convey the concept of "reasonable doubt"

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

Prohibiting "unreasonable seizures and searches"