§Why CasetextPricing

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

Respondent’s Brief

290 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,880 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"

  2. 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”

  3. 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”

  4. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,657 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"

  5. 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

  6. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 9,484 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

  7. 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”

  8. Barefoot v. Estelle

    463 U.S. 880 (1983)   Cited 11,507 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to obtain a CPC, a prisoner must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right" (internal quotations and alteration omitted)

  9. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,491 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  10. Payne v. Tennessee

    501 U.S. 808 (1991)   Cited 2,612 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

  11. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 13   Cited 4,516 times
    Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

  12. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,776 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

  13. Section 205 - Questionnaires

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 205   Cited 21 times

    (a) If a jury commissioner requires a person to complete a questionnaire, the questionnaire shall ask only questions related to juror identification, qualification, and ability to serve as a prospective juror. (b) Except as ordered by the court, the questionnaire referred to in subdivision (a) shall be used solely for qualifying prospective jurors, and for management of the jury system, and not for assisting in the courtroom voir dire process of selecting trial jurors for specific cases. (c) The