175 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,702 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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,642 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”
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,522 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation
Whren v. United States
517 U.S. 806 (1996) Cited 8,661 times 38 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"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 5,011 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”
Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins
560 U.S. 370 (2010) Cited 2,880 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"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,566 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,319 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of an involuntary statement is subject to harmless-error review
Warden v. Payton
544 U.S. 133 (2005) Cited 2,309 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding the Ninth Circuit "made this ... assumption, and it was in error to do so"
Missouri v. Seibert
542 U.S. 600 (2004) Cited 2,006 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[s]trategists dedicated to draining the substance out of" constitutional protections cannot accomplish by planning around these protections because it "effectively threatens to thwart [their] purpose"

PEOPLE v. CASE

175 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 “[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 officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation

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"

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 federal courts can "deny writs of habeas corpus under § 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA deference applies"

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

Holding that admission of an involuntary statement is subject to harmless-error review

Holding the Ninth Circuit "made this ... assumption, and it was in error to do so"

Holding that "[s]trategists dedicated to draining the substance out of" constitutional protections cannot accomplish by planning around these protections because it "effectively threatens to thwart [their] purpose"