539 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"
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,650 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”
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,419 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,659 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"
Sandin v. Conner
515 U.S. 472 (1995) Cited 18,666 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that liberty interests requiring procedural due process are limited to freedom from restraints that impose "atypical and significant hardship" as compared to ordinary prison life
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,985 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
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
Albright v. Oliver
510 U.S. 266 (1994) Cited 12,411 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim failed where the plaintiff failed to establish that he was deprived of a substantive due process right secured by the Constitution
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”
Section 848 - Continuing criminal enterprise
21 U.S.C. § 848 Cited 3,883 times 30 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the court's authority in certain situations to "impose a sentence, other than death, authorized by law"
Section 37.071 - Procedure In Capital Case
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071 Cited 1,041 times 7 Legal Analyses
Identifying "special issues" to be considered by the sentencer when determining the appropriate sentence
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
Section 9711 - Sentencing procedure for murder of the first degree
42 Pa. C.S. § 9711 Cited 740 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the victim's statements about the defendant that were communicated to the defendant were not hearsay when the statements were offered to prove the defendant's motive for killing the victim
Section 2 - Effective date
Cal. Pen. Code § 2 Cited 653 times
Amending § 3000.08
Section 2929.05 - Supreme court review upon appeal of sentence of death
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05 Cited 481 times
Directing the reviewing court to "independently weigh all facts and other evidence disclosed in the record in the case and consider the offense and the offender to determine . . . whether the sentence of death is appropriate"
Section 35-50-2-9 - Death penalty sentencing procedure
Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9 Cited 426 times 4 Legal Analyses
Aggravating factors must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt
Section 4209 - Punishment, procedure for determining punishment, review of punishment and method of punishment for first-degree murder committed by adult offenders
Del. Code tit. 11 § 4209 Cited 340 times 5 Legal Analyses
Establishing felony murder aggravator
Section 11
Cal. Const. art. VI § 11 Cited 304 times
Authorizing the taking of such evidence
Section 16-3-20 - Punishment for murder; separate sentencing proceeding when death penalty sought
S.C. Code § 16-3-20 Cited 287 times
Holding a person convicted of murder with aggravating circumstances is not eligible for parole

PEOPLE v. BRYANT

539 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 “[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 the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

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 liberty interests requiring procedural due process are limited to freedom from restraints that impose "atypical and significant hardship" as compared to ordinary prison life

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

Holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim failed where the plaintiff failed to establish that he was deprived of a substantive due process right secured by the Constitution

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”

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

Identifying "special issues" to be considered by the sentencer when determining the appropriate sentence

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

Holding that the victim's statements about the defendant that were communicated to the defendant were not hearsay when the statements were offered to prove the defendant's motive for killing the victim

Amending § 3000.08

Directing the reviewing court to "independently weigh all facts and other evidence disclosed in the record in the case and consider the offense and the offender to determine . . . whether the sentence of death is appropriate"

Aggravating factors must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt

Establishing felony murder aggravator

Authorizing the taking of such evidence

Holding a person convicted of murder with aggravating circumstances is not eligible for parole