175 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 21,711 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”
  2. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 14,044 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”
  3. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 51,950 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding that law enforcement officers must warn an individual of certain constitutional rights and the consequences of waiving those rights prior to conducting a custodial interrogation
  4. Whren v. United States

    517 U.S. 806 (1996)   Cited 7,008 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, upon observing traffic violation, officer may stop vehicle regardless of his subjective motivations, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action"
  5. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,523 times   51 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”
  6. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 18,597 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  7. Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins

    560 U.S. 370 (2010)   Cited 1,968 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts can "deny writs of habeas corpus under § 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA deference applies"
  8. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 4,531 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of harmless error applies to the violation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination through the admission at trial of an involuntary confession
  9. Warden v. Payton

    544 U.S. 133 (2005)   Cited 1,682 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the California Supreme Court's decision that a jury was not reasonably likely to think it could not consider post-conviction mitigation evidence when given a general jury instruction to consider all mitigation evidence, although perhaps "erroneous," was not unreasonable under AEDPA
  10. Davis v. United States

    512 U.S. 452 (1994)   Cited 2,552 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase “maybe I should talk to a lawyer” was not a request for counsel