330 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,616 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 17,380 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 16,608 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 77,515 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"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,936 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 9,455 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
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,791 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,291 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 4,996 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”
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts
557 U.S. 305 (2009) Cited 3,542 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial
Section 187 - Murder
Cal. Pen. Code § 187 Cited 19,741 times
Defining murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought."
Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. XIV Cited 11,379 times 3 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting deprivations by “State”
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,310 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 801 - Expert witness opinion testimony
Cal. Evid. Code § 801 Cited 2,418 times 1 Legal Analyses
Limiting expert testimony to opinions related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion would assist the trier of fact, and based on matter including special knowledge that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,107 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,773 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"
Section 17
Cal. Const. art. I § 17 Cited 1,403 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment
Section 800 - Lay witness opinion testimony
Cal. Evid. Code § 800 Cited 639 times
Requiring lay opinion testimony be "[h]elpful to a clear understanding of testimony"
Section 702 - Personal knowledge required
Cal. Evid. Code § 702 Cited 558 times
Qualifying as an expert witness
Section 3592 - Mitigating and aggravating factors to be considered in determining whether a sentence of death is justified
18 U.S.C. § 3592 Cited 458 times 11 Legal Analyses
Describing "[o]ther factors in the defendant's background, record, or character ... that mitigate against imposition of the death sentence"

PEOPLE v. LEON (RICHARD)

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

Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

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 a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

Defining murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought."

Prohibiting deprivations by “State”

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

Limiting expert testimony to opinions related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion would assist the trier of fact, and based on matter including special knowledge that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

Requiring lay opinion testimony be "[h]elpful to a clear understanding of testimony"

Qualifying as an expert witness

Describing "[o]ther factors in the defendant's background, record, or character ... that mitigate against imposition of the death sentence"