319 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,573 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 26,619 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”
Wiggins v. Smith
539 U.S. 510 (2003) Cited 9,458 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
Tennard v. Dretke
542 U.S. 274 (2004) Cited 5,493 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"
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”
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,936 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Roper v. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005) Cited 3,489 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
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"
Holmes v. South Carolina
547 U.S. 319 (2006) Cited 1,897 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a rule that categorically barred evidence of third-party guilt when strong forensic evidence of the defendant's guilt was presented "is arbitrary in the sense that it does not rationally serve the end that ... [it was] designed to further"
Sullivan v. Louisiana
508 U.S. 275 (1993) Cited 3,276 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "
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 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,107 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 17
Cal. Const. art. I § 17 Cited 1,406 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

PEOPLE v. ROMERO (ORLANDO) & SELF (CHRISTOPHER)

319 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 petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"

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 failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

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

Holding that a rule that categorically barred evidence of third-party guilt when strong forensic evidence of the defendant's guilt was presented "is arbitrary in the sense that it does not rationally serve the end that ... [it was] designed to further"

Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

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

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment